The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the amount acquired by the Defendant from the victims exceeds KRW 80,000 in total, and that the amount of damage is not much, and that more than half of the amount of damage is not repaid even though the considerable period has elapsed from the date of the crime.

However, the extent of the Defendant’s deception does not seem to be strong; the Defendant paid KRW 18.5 million to the victim D under the name of interest; the Defendant paid KRW 6.3 million to the victim G; the Defendant was also engaged in loan transactions with KRW 18.9 million on May 17, 2012, in addition to the facts charged against the victim D; however, the Defendant paid KRW 18.9 million to the principal and interest of the instant crime; and the Defendant continuously repaid the amount of the said damage to the victims even if it is small amount of money according to the personal rehabilitation procedure; and there is no particular criminal record.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and theories of the crime in this case, the punishment imposed by the court below is too uneasible and it does not seem unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is apparent that the “Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is a clerical error in the “Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” under Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure.