The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation and community service order, 200 hours of community service order, 40 hours of compliance driving lectures) of the gist of the grounds for appeal is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that sentencing takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory punishment, and the fact that the sentencing is conducted within an appellate court’s ex post facto heart nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the first instance judgment is different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance judgment and the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

It is not visible.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.