The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence (7 million won in penalty) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Although the crime of this case is deemed to be inferior to the nature of the crime committed by the Defendant, using another person’s driver’s license obtained by the Defendant, by forging or exercising a vehicle lease contract, and by exercising the driver’s license, it is deemed that the Defendant recognized the crime of this case and against it, the equity in the case of the judgment at the same time as the crime of fraud becomes final and conclusive, the Defendant has no record of identical crimes, the equity in sentencing with other accomplices, the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime is committed, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on August 19, 2015, “It is obvious that the appeal is a clerical error in writing,” and the application of the law is in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 230 of the Criminal Act, and Article 230 of the Criminal Act (the use of a private document as a means of uttering of the said private document), and each of the “the choice of fines” in relation to the crime is clear that it is a clerical error in the “the use of a private document” under Articles 231 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234, 231, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of a private document as a means of uttering of the said investigation document), Articles 230 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the use of a private document as a means of uttering of a private document), and Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and thus, the ex officio rectification of the fine shall be made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.