The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (two months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant had committed the instant crime while continuing to proceed with the so-called “fluoring” method despite the construction company’s default on its operation, which led to the instant crime.

The Defendant, based on the authority received from the victim (owner or building owner), already concluded a lease agreement with the lessee and received all the deposit from the lessee, but concealed it and caused the victim to enter into a re-lease agreement with another lessee. As a result, the Defendant’s crime of this case is not less than 58 million won in that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is up to 58 million won.

In addition, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and no agreement has been reached with the victim, and the damage of the victim has not yet been recovered.

In this respect, it is necessary to strictly punish the accused.

However, on the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and used his mistake in depth, and tried to normalize the company by finishing the construction work even after the company's default, and all of the crimes of this case, which became final and conclusive, are punished by a fine for other crimes without the same criminal record, and the circumstances where the defendant used the money acquired by the defendant as the construction fund and used it personally are not discovered, and the equality between the case where the defendant was tried with the judgment of conviction and the case where the defendant was tried.