2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant had the record of being sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime; (b) the selling of fake petroleum products requires strict punishment for the protection of consumers through the quality control of petroleum products, prevention of Fiscal Evasion, and protection of the people’s body and environment; (c) although it is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime; (d) the amount of fake petroleum products sold is relatively less and less than the number of fake petroleum products sold; and (e) the current number of sale fake petroleum products is less than once and less than the number of sale thereof; and (e) the risk of recidivism, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, are considered reasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not justified.

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