The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment (4 million won in penalty) of the court below is too unfluened.

2. In light of the judgment, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime, the fact that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim is a favorable sentencing ground, and the fact that the victim's head is very poor in the number of crimes, the fact that the crime is committed during the period of repeated crimes, and the fact that there are many records of punishment due to the same kind of violence crimes are disadvantageous reasons for sentencing.

In full view of all the above sentencing factors, the Defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, economic situation, background and motive leading up to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other matters on the sentencing indicated in the records and arguments on the change of the circumstances, the judgment below’s punishment is deemed appropriate, and the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, since there is no change of circumstances to be considered in the trial.

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, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in the case of a prosecutor, Article 35 of the Criminal Act is applied to the defendant in the trial, and all of the charges [the criminal records], “Defendant B was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Changwon District Court on December 10, 2014, and the execution of the sentence was completed in the detention house on March 29, 2015.

The court permitted the amendment of a bill of amendment with the content added "," but this is merely an obvious addition to the error in the indictment and can be corrected without the amendment of a bill of amendment without the procedure. Even if the above amendment procedure was completed in the trial, there was a change in the facts charged or the object of the trial is different from the original trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do489 delivered on September 29, 1995, etc.).