Considering the fraudulent methods and the amount of deception, the lower court: (a) took into account the fact that the nature of the crime is not less severe; and (b) took into account the fact that a significant portion of the damage has not been repaid; (c) took into account the fact that the Defendant was aware of and reflects the crime; (d) took account of the fact that the Defendant submitted the old repayment plan to the victim D and H, which has the majority of the total amount of the victims, and received the letter; and (e) took into account the favorable circumstances that have no record of the same

Considering the fact that the evidence of this case and the above sentencing were paid properly to the victim D and H for one period, that the defendant is being carried out according to the repayment plan that belongs to the above victims, and that there was no other penalty force than three times, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

Therefore, it cannot be said that it is unfair because it is too unfortunate.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

Since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.