The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The prosecutor stated in the petition of appeal that “the name of the crime: interference with the duties, assault, and the scope of appeal”, but stated that the part of the judgment below’s rejection of public prosecution concerning the violation of violence among the judgment below on the date of the first public trial at the court of first instance, is not an appeal.

The prosecutor’s above statement can be deemed to have withdrawn an appeal against the dismissed part of the judgment below.

Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, which is determined separately by the prosecutor's appeal.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

3. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court because new materials were not submitted in the trial, and in full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated in the lower court’s reasoning and the reasons for sentencing in this case’s records and arguments, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court is too unfford and so it exceeded

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.