The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (7 million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. It is recognized that, in light of the form of each of the instant crimes and the method thereof, the liability for such crimes is not less and the victim did not agree with each of the instant crimes.

However, considering all of the sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant offenses, the lower court’s punishment is too unafford and thus is unreasonable, if it is considered that there is no history of punishment heavier than the fine, and there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the amount of embezzlement or defraudation is not more than 1,881,50 won in total, and the amount of embezzlement or defraudation is not more than 1,881,50 won in total.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That among the judgment below, “using” under Article 356(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act was added by mistake. “Article 356(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 355 of the Criminal Act” under Article 355(1) of the column for the application of the Act is “Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act.” Since it is apparent that the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure was put into this error, it is corrected as ex officio deletion, correction, and addition pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.