The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (7 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference from the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference from the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In light of the fact that there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the lower court’s new materials for sentencing in the health room and the lower court’s reasonable grounds for sentencing, including the lower court’s age before and after its final trial.

Therefore, the 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 on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is evident that the “Article 37 former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act” is a clerical error in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act within the scope of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act, and Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure is clearly corrected ex officio in accordance with the application of the judgment below