2. In light of the content of the instant crime and the amount of damage, etc., there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s unfavorable effect on the part of the victim; (b) the Defendant’s violation of the crime; and (c) the Defendant appears to have reached a somewhat dolusence in the process of running his business; (d) there was no history of punishment exceeding the fine prior to the instant crime; and (e) efforts to recover from damage.

In light of the above circumstances and other circumstances, considering the sentencing conditions stated in the records, such as the Defendant’s occupation, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstance before and after the crime, the sentence of this case, which became final and conclusive as of September 30, 2010, is in a concurrent relationship between the Defendant and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), which became final and conclusive as of September 30, 201, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there is a need to determine the sentence at the same time in consideration of equity with the case where the sentence is judged at the same time, it is difficult to view

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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