2. The lower court rendered the above sentence, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s previous convictions of the same type of fraud, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have escaped without any damage recovery or agreement, and considering the fact that the total amount acquired by the Defendant was relatively large as KRW 17.1 million, and that equity should be considered in the case of the Defendant’s judgment at the same time with the crime of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, which became final and conclusive, with regard to the Defendant.

Taking account of the fact that there are many kinds of punishment records for the defendant for the same crime, considering the circumstances favorable to the court below, comprehensively considering the circumstances in which the court below took account of the defendant's favorable status, sex, environment, background leading up to the defendant's crime, means and result, size of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or maintain them as they are (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the prosecutor's aforementioned assertion is groundless.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.