2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, where there exists a unique area of the first instance in the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant case interferes with police officers’ performance of duties, such as having a police officer weared his/her uniform at multiple times and trying to walk while taking a bath, and the nature of such crime is very inappropriate.

In the past, the defendant has been sentenced to several fines for violent crimes.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect all of the crimes of this case.

Although the defendant was sentenced to a fine several times for violent crimes, there is no record of criminal punishment after 1997.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the factors of sentencing as shown in the trial process, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion, or to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

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.