The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a repeated crime committed during the period of a repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, having a number of criminal records of the same kind, and the quality of the crime cannot be deemed to have been poor and the defendant cannot be deemed to have actually reflected in the crime, the lower court’s punishment (hereinafter “fine 6,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Unfair sentencing, which is the grounds for appeal under Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act, refers to cases where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the specific case’s contents. The sentencing is a discretionary judgment based on the statutory penalty, which takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. In light of the fact that the court of first instance has the inherent area of the first instance as to the determination of sentencing and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect it in cases where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of the discretion, and it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

With respect to the instant case, the circumstances asserted by the Prosecutor as the reasons for appeal are determined to be considered as the circumstances already considered in the course of the lower court’s sentencing hearing (in view of the fact that the Defendant submitted and led to the submission of a written opinion and counter-written statement recognizing the entire facts charged in the lower court’s judgment, there is no ground to view that it is not against the law, and in case of obstruction of business, the degree of abuse of power or interference with business is relatively minor, and the extent of interference with business is relatively minor, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim.