The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (five million won in penalty) against the Defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence on the grounds of appeal by comprehensively considering the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant as stated in its reasoning, and also appears to have already been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.

It is difficult to find out any change in special sentencing conditions that can change the sentence of the court below for the first time.

In full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, family relation, criminal history, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s disposition, which the Defendant was placed on the Defendant as a fine, is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is with merit.