All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below’s decision was deferred to the Defendants (the fine of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

2. The court below held that since Defendant A and C were first offenders, and Defendant B had no record of punishment or punishment exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime, and since the present door was corrected due to the decline in the common residence of this case, the defendant's entry into the residence should not be allowed. However, the dwelling of this case is jointly owned by Defendant A and the victim, and there are circumstances to consider in light of the motive and circumstance of the crime of this case. As long as the brus that were corrected due to Defendant A's power, the crime of damage can not be asked. However, with regard to the fact that the brus of this case seems to have been deteriorated, it appears that the brus of this case were jointly owned by Defendant A and the victim, and in relation to the fact of attempted larceny of this case, it appears that Defendant A was in possession of the brus of this case, but it appears to have discontinued the larceny act by himself.

In full view of the circumstances taken into account as above and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, size of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court is deemed reasonable to have suspended the sentence of each fine to the Defendants. The lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in sentencing.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing to the extent that the lower court should be reversed, as otherwise asserted by the prosecutor.