2. Although the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same type of crime, and that there was no agreement with the victim until now, and that the damage was not recovered, it is deemed that the sentence of the lower judgment is too unreasonable in view of various sentencing factors indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, occupation and environment, circumstance and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the fact that the Defendant did not have any other criminal records except the punishment for fraud in 2007; (b) the Defendant was at the investigative agency when committing the crime; (c) the Defendant was able to repay while committing the crime; and (d) the amount of the defraudation in this case is difficult to regard the amount of the Defendant’s deception as a severe punishment for the

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.