2. The fact that the amount of damage resulting from the instant crime exceeds 10 million won, the victim is in danger of not being able to recover his claim against the Defendant, and the victim is punished by the Defendant is disadvantageous.

However, there is no criminal offense, and there is no criminal offense, and there is no criminal offense exceeding the fine.

In addition, the lower court’s sentence does not deviate from the scope of the sentencing guidelines (from August to three years), and the sentencing guidelines do not fall under the category 2 (from August to 3), the basic area (from August to 500), the person subject to special sentencing (from August to August 3), and the scope of the recommended sentence indicated in the prosecutor’s written opinion (No. 108th of the trial record) as a result of the combination of identical types of crimes, the total amount of damages under each of the instant offenses does not take into account the situation in which the total amount of damages under each of the instant offenses results in the combination of the same types of crimes, which led to the rise in one step-by-class as a result of the combination of the crimes, the motive and circumstances of the crimes, the circumstances after the crimes, the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., and all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and changes theories, and thus, it cannot be deemed unfair to impose the lower judgment’s punishment too unfeasible.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.