The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (the suspended sentence: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) led to the Defendant to commit the instant crime; (b) in light of the circumstances of the instant case, the Defendant: (c) while the Defendant was operating an acting driver, he was waiting for a substitute driver to drive the instant crime; (d) caused damage to the vehicle by shocking the road strings while entering the gas charging lawsuit; and (e) accordingly, the Defendant and the substitute driver wanted to move the vehicle upon the request of the substitute driver to move the vehicle; (b) however, the substitute driver refused to move the vehicle as stated in the facts charged; (c) there is considerable reason to consider the driving of the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant’s vehicle driving distance was extremely limited to a certain range of distance between the Defendant and the substitute driver.

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing is unfair because it is too too un

Therefore, prosecutors.