2. Although there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) planning and systematic and systematic length of the instant crime; (b) poor quality of the crime was committed; (c) the victim was not much damaged; and (d) the Defendant denied the first part of the crime at an investigative agency and recognized the Defendant’s wife in the mind that the damage was not fully recovered; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime; and (e) subsequently, the Defendant’s mistake was divided into and reflects the depth; (e) the amount of profit that the Defendant actually received in relation to the instant crime was 15.3 million won; (b) the amount of profit that the Defendant paid is paid 8.7 million won as the insurance premium of the contracting parties, including himself; (c) the Defendant deposited 2 million won in the lower court’s trial process for the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not have any other force except for a fine of KRW 500,000,000 for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act on around 191; and (e) there was no special circumstance or change in sentencing after the sentencing after the sentencing of sentencing, the Defendant’s character and circumstances and circumstances following the instant crime.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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

However, the phrase “E and 17 others” under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime of the original judgment; the phrase “1,39,700” under [Attachment Table 17]; the phrase “1,89,700” under [Attachment Table 17]; and the phrase “40,324,081” under the above table total of the acquisition fees under the above table shall be the sum of the difference between 40,824,081 and the above table.