2. In light of the legislative purpose of the Music Industry Promotion Act, which aims to enhance the quality of cultural life of the people and contribute to the development of the national economy by prescribing matters necessary for the promotion of the music industry and promoting the development of related industries, the judgment defendant is recognized as having the record of being punished three times as fines for the same crime.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant has no criminal history heavier than the fine, the fact that his mistake is divided, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 70(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is apparent that “1. Investigation report (the telephone investigation)” was erroneously omitted in the column for evidence in the judgment of the court below, and the applicable section of the Act is “Article 70(1) of the Criminal Act” in the term “Article 70 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)” is a clerical error in the term “Article 70 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 201). Thus, it is corrected to add and correct ex officio