The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). A prosecutor did not submit new sentencing data in the trial. The reason for unreasonable sentencing as asserted by the prosecutor is that the lower court appears to have already taken full account of the circumstances in determining the punishment. In full view of all the sentencing conditions stated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too un

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

(However, among the facts of the crime of the lower judgment, it is obvious that “An appeal was filed, but the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal on July 3, 2018,” and it is apparent that it is a clerical error, and thus, it is corrected to delete it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on