The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a.5 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the following facts: (a) the money in arrears with workers due to each of the instant crimes, which led to the fact that the said employees did not have a large amount of money in arrears; (b) the injury was recovered or the circumstances where the Defendant endeavored to recover damage were not revealed; and (c) the Defendant had a history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the sentence of the lower court is somewhat uneasible.

However, in light of the circumstances established by C and the status of the defendant, some of the circumstances for each of the crimes of this case can be considered.

It is reasonable to respect E, at least, that part of E is deemed to have been paid a substitute payment, that may have been tried simultaneously with a final and conclusive crime of fraud (two-year imprisonment). On the other hand, in comparison with the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and that the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following factors, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (b) the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion; and (c) the first instance court’s sentencing is not deemed to

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.