The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (one million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In such a case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted at the trial court, and in full view of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem to deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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

However, since it is apparent that the application of the law of the court below was omitted in the ordinary concurrence, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 25(2) of the "Application of the law" of the court below ex officio is to add "each" in the front of "Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act" among the "Article 136(1) of the applicable law concerning the crime of 1." and delete "the choice of punishment" at the bottom of the judgment, and to add "1.1.1.1.," "the ordinary concurrence", "Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act", "the selection of punishment", "the selection of punishment of 1.1." and "the choice of punishment penalty" respectively.