2. The crime of this case is determined as follows: (a) the Defendant, designated as a special judicial police assistant in C, has broken the written investigation command, etc. in a short and long-term form on the ground that the prosecutor in charge does not go against his mind; (b) the nature of the crime is extremely poor; (c) the Defendant’s content of the investigation command by the public prosecutor in charge, without the authority to prosecute the Defendant on the ground that he paid the fine for negligence, is not clear whether only the date and time, amount, etc. of the penalty was confirmed through the payment receipt, etc. and the penalty was paid for this case; and (d) it is difficult to confirm the facts constituting the crime of which the penalty was paid, along with the records, and there is no reason to believe that the Defendant is unfair (or cannot be justified even if there was any improper content in the investigation direction), and in particular, the Defendant thought that the Defendant would replace the written investigation command, etc. at the court of the lower court, and stated that the Defendant committed such crime is disadvantageous to him.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have recognized and reflected the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was an initial offender who has no record of criminal punishment; (c) the Defendant is retired from office when a public official is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, details and details of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.