The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is deemed unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. The circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the prosecutor in the trial at the lower court, such as: (a) the Defendant’s desire to take public officials and to take things at the place where many civil petitioners frequent; and (b) there are many records of criminal punishment due to violent crimes; and (c) the circumstance unfavorable to the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor in the trial at the lower court is sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment; (b) the Defendant is led to confession and rebuttal; (c) the Defendant openly obsing the public officials at the administrative welfare center where many civil petitioners frequent access; and (d) it is extremely inappropriate to put the Defendant into violence; or (c) it is difficult to view that the degree of the Defendant’s use of violence is more serious compared to the similar cases; and (d) the Defendant is subject