2. It is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s crime of this case, which interfered with his/her pharmacy business, did not pay management expenses to his/her management office under the circumstance where the right to manage commercial buildings is disputed; (b) the nature of the crime of this case and the criminal fact of the Defendant who interfered with his/her pharmacy business; and (c) the Defendant’s failure to pay substantial damages due to his/her failure to reach an agreement with the victim up to the trial

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant believed that he/she has the right to manage a commercial building and there are circumstances that may be taken into account in the course of the instant crime; (b) the instant short-term measure was completely unforeseeable from the perspective of the victim; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 3 million for the victim’s compensation for damages; (d) the Defendant did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine; (e) the Defendant made a confession of all the facts charged in the instant case; and (e) the Defendant divided the wrong facts while making a confession; and (e) other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character, family environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence against

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.