The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (7 million won in penalty) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed unfair because it is too unfasible.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to one year of imprisonment due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), etc. on April 7, 201 after having been sentenced to imprisonment for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc., it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant was committed at the time of and divided into the instant crime, the equity in the case where the Defendant was tried at the same time with the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking) which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the lower court, and all other sentencing circumstances shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and it is not recognized as unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, but “the pertinent Article of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. and Selection of Punishment” in the application of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. shall be construed as “the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (wholly amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016).”