The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including Defendant’s age, sex behavior, motive, frequency of crime, method of crime, circumstance after crime, etc., comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the lower court’s punishment is too uneasy and unfair in light of the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant’s confession and reflects the fact that he/she committed a crime; (c) there was no record of interference with the performance of official duties; (d) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties; (e) the fact that he/she did not know even during the repeated crime period; (e) the convenience store’s duty is obstructed; and (e) the police officer dispatched to the police station is not good; and (e) the need for strict punishment for the crime that interfered with the performance of official duties is committed; and (e) the court’

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 136(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” among the “application of the Act” of the court below’s “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act”