The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Of the disposition of the lower court, “D” in the part of dismissal of public prosecution shall be corrected to “N”.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstance unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the prosecutor in the trial of a party appears to have already been determined by the lower court and sufficiently taken into account, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment, based thereon, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to see the sentencing conditions, and there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since it is obvious that “D” in the part of the judgment below’s dismissal of public prosecution is a clerical error of “N”, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below to correct it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.