The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the lower judgment, the sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing against Defendant A (amounting to KRW 6 million) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the various evidences submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B and the legal principles as to the Defendant’s portion, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant, in collusion with F, could acknowledge the fact that the Defendant purchased the Plaintiff’s No. Y-A car left alone due to the accident committed by Korea, and by deceiving the Defendant as if he offered it as security, thereby deceiving the Defendant to acquire the KRW

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: (a) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s determination; and (b) considering the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence appears to be unfair; and (c) thus, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

B. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant B’s portion, the court below held that each written statement prepared by I was not admissible because it was not established by the above I, and that F was accused of the Defendant B’s complaint with respect to the NAS vehicle at the Internet club in the prosecutor’s office and the trial court, and thus, the name was lent to the Defendant B. Defendant B did not have any explanation that the above NAS was an accident vehicle. Rather, Defendant B did not have any explanation that the above NAS was an accident vehicle before the loan. Rather, Defendant B stated Defendant B’s husband with a consistent statement that it was only showing a normal NAS vehicle before the loan, and F deposited the loan to the Defendant with respect to the above NAS vehicle differently from the loan for other vehicles, and the Defendant did not have any benefit with respect to the above NAS vehicle loan.