2. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed an Internet fraud against many unspecified persons, and that the nature of the offense was extremely poor in light of the frequency of the offense, method and scale of damage, etc. by illegally using another person’s passbook or personal information for committing a fraud, etc., and that the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime even before the instant case, there is a need to punish the Defendant solemnly.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was led to confession; (b) a significant portion of the amount of damage was repaid by mutual consent with 27 victims; (c) the Defendant was detained for about 3 months in the instant case; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment; (b) details and details leading to the instant crime; and (c) circumstances leading to the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable.

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.