The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., in a case where the defendant has instigated a juvenile witness twice, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant continues to deny his/her criminal act without being divided into his/her criminal act before being detained by the investigation agency, and the circumstances after the crime are not good. In light of all circumstances, the punishment (e.g., imprisonment for six months, suspension of execution for two years, community service hours for 80 hours (old imprisonment for one year and six months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant: (a) asked G, a juvenile who purchased tobacco from E, to make a statement to the effect that “A would purchase tobacco by requesting the university students to purchase tobacco instead of purchasing tobacco directly from E; (b) by making a false statement to the purport that G made the above purport; (c) requested G to make a false statement to the effect that “A would purchase tobacco by requesting the university students to purchase the tobacco; and (d) the Defendant instigated G to make a false statement to the effect that it would be against his/her memory on September 4, 2012; and (b) instigated G to instigate on or around September 25, 2012; (c) aiding and abetting a juvenile who has not yet been able to judge on two occasions; and (d) perjury is not a good crime; and (c) in light of the fact that it interferes with the court’s deliberation for finding the truth and causes confusion and confusion in the judicial action of the State, it is strictly necessary to punish Defendant 2.

However, in the case of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, the defendant's late and reflects the crime of this case, and led to the confession of all the crimes committed before the judgment on the case of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act, and the case of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act of E where the perjury was committed was withdrawn from the request for formal trial on or around January 30, 2013, and the part of the defendant's aiding and abetting the above evidence did not affect the result of the judgment on the case of the violation of the Juvenile Protection Act of E. The defendant's mother, the