2. In light of the judgment, the Defendant recognized his mistake and divided his depth, and the Defendant did not have been punished for the same kind of crime as the instant crime, and fulfilled his duty of military service in good faith.

In light of the fact that there seems to be somewhat extenuating circumstances in the course of committing the instant crime, and other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the Defendant committed the instant crime before and after the Defendant committed the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unaffortable.

Therefore, prosecutor's sentencing and warning cannot be accepted.

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 prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act on the ground that the “Article 88(1) of the same Act on the ground of criminal facts” of the application of the law of the judgment below is obvious that the “Article 88(1)1 of the Military Service Act” of the “Article 88(1) of the same Act is erroneous and erroneously held office. Therefore, Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is dismissed in accordance with the ex officio correction).