2. In light of the method of the instant crime and the amount of fraud, etc., there is no good quality of the Defendant’s crime; the Defendant alleged that he did not deceive the victim; and the Defendant denied the crime; and the Defendant did not completely recover from damage.

On the other hand, there are no specific criminal punishment in addition to the fine twice for the defendant, and in particular, there is no previous criminal punishment for the defendant, against the damage inflicted on the victim, and against the fact that the defendant is paying the amount of damage in the future.

In this context, considering the various circumstances shown in the records and arguments such as the character, character, environment, etc. of the defendant, since the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant cannot be deemed unfair, 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment ex officio is corrected to " February 25, 201" in Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.