2. The instant case’s determination is an infringement upon the workers’ right to organize, which is the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution, and even if considering the unfavorable circumstances that the nature of the crime is not negligible, it appears that the Defendant led to confession and reflect. The influence that the Defendant actually did not have any specific criminal history, other than once a fine, and all of the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading up to a crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s determination of sentencing cannot be deemed unreasonable or unfair to exceed the reasonable limit of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.