The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the lower court (e., a fine of five million won) is deemed unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(2) The lower court’s judgment on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to the aforementioned sentence on the grounds of sentencing; (b) the Defendant repeated the same crime despite having been discovered by a false report even before the instant case; and (c) the police officers who received a report and dispatched to the police officers are not good to commit the crime; and (d) the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in the trial of the lower court have already been determined by the lower court; (b) the Defendant led to the confession of the offense; and (c) the Defendant did not have any history of being subject to criminal punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties; and (d) the lower court’s judgment on the sentencing does not seem to have exceeded

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, prosecutor.