2. The lower court determined that the instant crime was committed by the Defendant despite the Defendant’s receipt of the notice of isolation due to Coina 19, and determined the same sentence as the disposition, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the fact that the crime was committed by the Defendant, in light of social risk resulting from the violation of self-Isolation measures, social cost issues related thereto, etc.; (b) the Defendant did not de facto realize risks resulting from the Defendant’s act of violation following the Defendant’s voice decision ex post facto, and the fact that the Defendant reflects the fact that the Defendant violated the instant notice of isolation; and (c) other circumstances, such as the frequency and time when the Defendant violated the instant notice of isolation, the time and distance from the isolation place, and the circumstances leading to the

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the grounds for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in the trial at the lower court appears to have been considered in the sentencing; (b) there is no new circumstance to consider the Defendant’s sentencing heavier than that of the first instance court; and (c) there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court; and (d) the first instance court’s sentencing is appropriate to respect the Defendant’s sentence when it does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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