The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant had the record of having been punished for the same kind of crime before the instant crime was committed, was sentenced to a punishment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and committed the instant crime on November 21, 2013 while serving the sentence on November 21, 2013, even after the execution of the sentence was completed, and the Defendant was unable to use the sentence from the injured party due to an agreement with the injured party and did not recover the damage.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the instant crime, and the Defendant reported that other persons are wirling each other, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking account of the fact that there were circumstances to consider it, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court was exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion, or that it was unfair because it was too unfeasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Provided, however, Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act in relation to the criminal facts of the judgment below is obvious that the "Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act", and it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure