In light of the fact that the Defendant, who had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, committed the instant crime again, and that the amount of damage was reasonable, and the Defendant did not pay for the damage at all, the nature of the instant crime is not weak.

However, the crime of fraud in the first head of the crime of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive, is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and need to consider equity with the case of concurrent judgment in accordance with

In full view of all the above circumstances, the sentencing of the court below is too unjustifiable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and is not unfair, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the background and method of the instant crime; (b) the degree of damage and whether damage was recovered; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, home environment, and history of punishment; and (d) the overall circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit.