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. 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) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfeasible and excessively unfasible to the sentencing of the Defendant, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s physical card that the Defendant leased was actually used for the commission of a fraudulent act; (b) the Defendant recognized the commission of a crime; and (c) the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment other than the one sentenced to a fine for this type of crime.

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.