The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (five million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant paid the taxi fee to the victim E of the crime of fraud 399, which was decided through a police officer; (c) the Defendant was hospitalized into the closed ward due to alcohol dependence, etc.; and (d) the Defendant was receiving treatment by hospitalization in the closed ward as of the present alcohol dependence; and (e) the amount of damage is relatively small, favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant.

In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial of the party are considered, there is no meaningful change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relation and social ties, degree of damage, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and is thus unreasonable.

Therefore, 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.