The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the extent that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfased.

2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confession of all the facts charged in the instant case, and the fact that there was no particular criminal conviction in addition to the fine, etc.

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, the defendant's agreement with Q, U, and T on some interference with the defendant's business and the fact that the defendant is a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act shall be considered as favorable circumstances.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

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 (Article 313 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is not reasonable. However, in the case of Article 313 of the Criminal Act on the 4th page of the judgment below, the defendant’s appeal is in accordance with the written indictment, or according to the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that it is due to an error. Thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure,