The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The accused and the defense counsel with the summary of the grounds for appeal will exchange the vehicle's fashion valves with new products, as shown in the facts charged in this case.

Recognizing that there is no doubt in writing.

However, the Defendant did not file an appeal within the time limit for filing an appeal, and ex officio examination of the facts charged by the lower court that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by comprehensively taking account of the evidence, such as witness E and G’s legal statements in each original court, Kakao Stockholm dialogue, recording, etc.

As such, the judgment on the above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel is not stated separately.

The punishment of the court below (1.5 million won) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto examination, 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 discretion. Even though the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

As such, the prosecutor's assertion is not visible.