The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (not guilty portion of the judgment of the lower court), although the Defendant acquired jugno No. 4 lost jugno No. 5 with the intention of unlawful acquisition and recognized the fact of embezzlement, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant acquired gallonno No. 4 with the awareness that it was lost.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant as above.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, even if comprehensively considering the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

The prosecutor's improper sentencing.