2. Although the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime even though he/she was under criminal trial for the same crime, there are unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime, that it was impossible for the Defendant to communicate traffic over three hours in total due to the instant crime, or that there was considerable inconvenience to ordinary citizens, but the Defendant appears to have suffered significant inconvenience. However, the Prosecutor’s assertion is not acceptable on the grounds that the Defendant led or planned the instant crime, and that the Defendant did not seem to have actively led or planned the instant crime on the record, taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the process and motive of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for the pleadings and the sentencing indicated in the record, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. 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 groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.