2. Although the Defendant had been punished twice by a fine due to a violation of the Road Act, the Defendant committed the instant crime again, and there was an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime. Meanwhile, the Defendant was aware of the instant crime, and thus, restored to its original state the string of inducing starting line (the tea regulation salary stated in paragraph 2 of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment), and prepared a substitute site, and thus, the Defendant would not repeat the said crime again.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s motive and background leading up to the instant crime; (b) the means and method of committing the instant crime; (c) the circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and family relationship; and (c) the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unfeasible to the Defendant.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit. Thus, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment below’s error of office “from March 2, 2015 to March 18:40, 2015” as of March 2, 2016 to March 4, 2016, from March 18:40, from March 2, 2016 to March 4, 2016. Thus, it is obvious that the prosecutor’s appeal is correct ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.