The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and sixty hours of community service work) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The determination is based on the following: (a) each of the instant crimes was committed continuously by the Defendant using a fiduciary relationship with the victims; (b) not only is the quality of the crime but also is a large amount of damage exceeding KRW 37 million; and (c) is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses; (b) the Defendant is the primary offender; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 10 million in the name of the victim E and D; and (d) the Defendant deposited KRW 3 million in the future of the victim E and D; and (c) other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, happy family environment; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

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, the judgment of the court below is clearly stated that the phrase " January 24, 2010" of Nos. 1 in the annexed Table 2 of the crime sight table in the annexed Table 2 is a clerical error in the phrase " January 4, 2010," and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the