The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not agree with the victim of the crime of destroying property and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties; (b) the fact that the Defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victim of the crime of destroying property and the victim of the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties; and (c) the fact that, in the case of the crime of violating the Samlim Protection Act, a fire could have been destroyed if the victim was not destroyed at the time of the occurrence of the crime of violating the Samlim Protection Act, there was no history that the victim was punished in excess of the fine prior to the instant case; (d) the degree of damage to the forest was not relatively heavy; (e) there was no circumstances or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the decision of the lower court was rendered; and (e) other factors of sentencing as shown in the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.