The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unfilled.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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 vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the court did not submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case are comprehensive, it is too unfford that the sentencing of the first instance court goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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 appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure; Provided, That ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the “suspects” of the first page 2 of the judgment of the court below as “ July 1, 2016”; the “suspects of the suspect” of the second page 7 as “Defendant”; and the “sections of the government container” of the second page 9 as “sections of the government container”.