2. The judgment of this case is that the defendant sent the police officer by posting a false report by telephone 112 twice through two times, and the nature of the crime is not weak in consideration of the waste of the police force resulting from the case.

However, the defendant does not repeat again after recognizing his mistake.

There is no record that the defendant has been punished for the same crime.

In full view of the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to such Defendant and other various sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is within the scope of the sentencing discretion assigned to the lower court, and it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the Defendant is unfair due to its proper and too uneasible sentencing.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.