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) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s decision on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The court below rendered the above sentence to the defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. The court below, on the grounds that: (a) the defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment for violent crimes; (b) there are many records of criminal punishment; (c) the police officer was requested to compromise with the police officer by false means; and (d) the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the prosecutor are sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment at the court below; (d) the confession of the defendant is committed; and (e) the defendant was led to a confession and reflect against the police officer; and (e) assaulting the police officer by any deceptive means, such as fraud, is very inappropriate conduct; (e) however, it is difficult to view that the degree of violence by the defendant was compared with similar cases.