The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service work hours of two hundred hours) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the following: (a) there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s determination; and (b) there are various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment seems unfair. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned 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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

1. In relation to facts constituting a crime, the phrase “Article 19(2) and Article 6(1)19 of the School Health Act (the operation of a commercial entertainment business establishment in the school environment cleanup zone)” in the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts is obvious that the phrase “Article 19(2) and Article 6(1)19 of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 13946, Feb. 3, 2016)” is a clerical error in the context of “Article 19(2) and Article 6(1)19 of the former School Health Act (amended by Act No. 13946, Feb. 3, 2016). Therefore, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1)

In addition, under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, it is evident that the “Article 37(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act,” was omitted in the first sentence of the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is corrected to add it in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.