2. The Defendant had a record of being punished several times due to the same kind of crime, etc., and the Defendant appears to have suffered a large inconvenience for the general public due to the impossibility of considerable time of traffic flow due to each of the instant crimes, or substantial difficulty in traffic flow.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not seem to have actively led or planned each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant appears to have participated in an assembly or demonstration as a simple participant; and (c) the background and degree of the Defendant’s participation in each of the instant crimes; (d) the process and purpose of each of the instant assemblies; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, environment, motive and motive of the instant crimes; and (e) other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant records

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.