The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Considering the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the substance of the specific crime of the grounds for appeal, and that the Defendant’s speech and behavior to obstruct the continuation of construction even during the trial process, etc., the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Unreasonable sentencing, which is the grounds for appeal under Article 361-5 subparagraph 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. Sentencing is a discretionary judgment based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope. In light of the fact that there exist the inherent areas of the court of first instance as to the determination of sentencing in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, 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 to the court of first instance, and where the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance just because the sentence of the court of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In relation to the instant case, as stated in the grounds for sentencing of the said judgment, the Health Center, the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, taking into account the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, and determined the punishment within a reasonable scope. The circumstances asserted by the Prosecutor as the grounds for appeal are determined to be the circumstances already considered in the course of the sentencing hearing of the lower court. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence is too

3. Conclusion.