Since only the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion of the judgment below, the dismissal of prosecution in the judgment below was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspended execution) by the lower court is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has its unique area in relation to the determination of sentencing, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the court of the lower court are all presented in the trial at the court below, and the lower court has determined a punishment by reflecting the aforementioned factors, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in

In addition, even in full view of all the reasons for sentencing revealed during the pleadings of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion in sentencing.

4. Accordingly, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.