2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) The lower court rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In so doing, the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too unafforded, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of all the factors of sentencing indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the following: (a) the Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of interference with business; (b) the Defendant’s mistake was against the victim; and (c) the primary offender was the first offender; and (d) there was no special circumstance or circumstance to be considered newly

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