All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant made a confession of the entire crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that the Defendant appears to have compensated for the entire damages caused by the crime of damage to the public property of this case.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been administered twice by the defendant, smoking about 0.5g of marijuana, harming the utility of a portable inquiry device by the police, which is a public object, and damaging patrol vehicles. In light of the method and content of the crime, etc., the crime of this case is considerably poor; the defendant committed the crime of this case at the same time despite the fact that there was a history of one suspended sentence and one criminal punishment once a fine; and other various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as equity in sentencing with the same and similar cases; the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc.; and the sentence imposed by the court below is within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines; ① the punishment period of each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. by cellphone medication; ③ the punishment period of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc."), and the basic scope of imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months or less.