2. The judgment of the court below is based on the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as collecting or collecting the money deposited by the victims in cash and depositing the passbook into another financial account, and thus making it difficult for them to recover damage and make it difficult to recover damage. Thus, serious punishment is required. The defendant plays an essential core role in the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the damage has been recovered, the victim sought the defendant's wife, the criminal records exceeding the fine have not been imposed against the defendant, the defendant's health status is not good, and the family and the persons who want to take the wife are clearly favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the prosecutor does not accept the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.

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