The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the crime of this case is not good to be committed by the defendant, who administered Mepta, and opened the floor of the detention room in the Gyeongnam Police Station in the Gyeongnam-do Police Station, and damaged goods used by public offices by opening the remote area, and the defendant again committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment on December 8, 2005 due to the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence), and the defendant again committed the crime of this case. In light of the above records of the defendant, it is difficult to expect the effect of preventing recidivism against the defendant, and the defendant's statement that he purchased Mepta from K from the investigative agency, but the above statement of the defendant is a false statement. In light of the above facts, it is too unfair to levy imprisonment (a suspended sentence 2 years in October, probation, community service order 120 hours, order to attend school and pharmacologic treatment order).

2. Taking into account the above circumstances asserted by the prosecutor, even if the defendant surrenders himself to the investigative agency and repents his wrong depth, the defendant paid 520,000 won to the floor of the detention room in the Gyeongnam Police Station in the Gyeongnam Police Station, which damaged the defendant, and the defendant was punished on December 8, 2005 as a crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act, etc. Act (fence) and for seven years or more to the crime in this case, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime. The defendant's family members are able not to repeat the crime. The defendant's family members can expect the effect of the prevention of recidivism through probation ordered by the court below. In full view of all such circumstances as the defendant's character, character and environment, the background and result of the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the prosecutor's assertion above is without merit.

3. Conclusion.