The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable since the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of probation, and 40 hours of probation and alcohol treatment) is too uneased.

2. Although the Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to violence and fraud, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again, and the fact that the damage was not recovered or did not reach an agreement with the victims is disadvantageous to the Defendant, even though there were many records of being sentenced to a fine due to violence and fraud.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to confession of and reflect on the facts constituting an offense; (b) the victim D’s injury is relatively less light due to the 14th day’s climatic salt, tension, etc.; (c) the amount of damage caused by the fraudulent act is not much significant than KRW 190,000 in total; (d) there was no record of punishment exceeding the fine due to the same crime; (b) the Defendant was under detention for about six months in the original instance and the trial; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive for the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of

3. In conclusion, 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.

However, in the application of the law of the court below as stated in the judgment below, the "Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure" is clear that the "Article 347 (1) of the relevant law and the choice of punishment for the crime of 1.0," "the fraud of Article 347 (1)" is an error of "the fraud of Article 347 (1), the choice of imprisonment", and the "the choice of imprisonment" is an error.

.