2. In addition to the objective sentencing grounds of the instant crime, such as the sentencing grounds in its holding, the lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s two times of fines (one same kind of fines); (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (c) the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, character

In full view of the circumstances taken into account by the lower court and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument and record of the instant case and the fact that there are no special changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court following the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the lower court’s sentencing is too unhued and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

[However, ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, "Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act" of the column for discretionary mitigation as "(s) Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act" of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected as "Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act," and "Article 55(1) of the Criminal Act" of the column for discretionary mitigation.