2. The judgment of the Defendant committed the instant crime again after receiving a summary order of KRW 5 million on January 8, 2015 after he committed the same crime in the same building as the instant case, and the Defendant also instigated the Defendant to commit the instant crime on the ground that he/she was his/her relative relative as his/her employer after enforcement.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake in depth is against the time of the crime (the court below denied part of the time of the crime, but did not appeal against the judgment below which found the guilty), and the fact that the Defendant’s health is likely to be shocked, and thus, it seems that the Defendant also caused the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting the offender. However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that there is a little degree of consideration in the circumstances of the crime, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation and environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below’s punishment is too uneasible, and thus it is deemed unfair, the prosecutor’s assertion

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, however, Article 62(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act provide that “Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act are deemed to be “Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act,” and ex officio correction is made).