Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is finalized, it is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.

2. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of 10 months, the suspension of execution of 2 years, the observation of protection, the forfeiture) is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In light of the fact that the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that is not different from the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing data are not submitted in the appellate court’s trial. In full view of the reasons revealed in this case.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

4. 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.