The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant committed the repeated crime even though he was in the period of repeated crime; and (b) the Defendant was robbery beyond the exaggeration of fact

Considering that the nature of the crime, such as reporting, is not good, and that the above false accusation could have been likely to cause serious damage to C, the punishment against the defendant was determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s confession and reflection of the instant crime in favorable circumstances; (b) the Defendant’s confession and reflection of the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, career, home environment; (d) motive and means of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime.

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the instant case, and there are no other special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too low.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.