2. The lower court, in light of the fact that the number of violations by the Defendant was considerably high, the Defendant committed a second offense continuously despite being given warning at each time of the violation, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the need to punish the Defendant during the repeated crime period, considering the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant’s failure to repeat the crime in the future, the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and the Defendant’s notification of the situation subject to the protection and observation of the protection and observation of the protective observation office on July 27, 2015, sentenced the above punishment by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the fact that the Defendant lives faithfully after the request for investigation on July 27, 2015, and is confirmed to have a clear social relationship, such as cultivating a normal family by marriage, engaging in certain occupational activities, etc.

In full view of the circumstances that take into account the unfavorable circumstances as above, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to committing a crime, means and consequence, scale of crime and circumstances after committing a crime, etc., the lower court determined that the sentence imposed by the Defendant was appropriate, and that the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it is so far as it ought to be reversed.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.