The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

As to the instant case, there are records of criminal punishment such as punishment on several occasions for the same crime even before the Defendant committed the same crime. However, the fact that the instant crime was committed during the period of probation due to the same crime is disadvantageous to sentencing, it is difficult to evaluate that there is any change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because the lower court did not submit any particular sentencing data in the process of determining the sentence. The amount of damage to the instant crime is relatively small amount; the Defendant expressed his intent not to have the Defendant punished by mutual consent with the victim at the investigation stage; the Defendant expressed his/her intention not to have the Defendant punished; and the Defendant’s family health status need to be supported by the Defendant and the Defendant is not good; in full view of the factors revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too un