2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the ground

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

As to this case, in full view of the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of this case including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of crime and circumstances after crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unfasible, and thus, the Prosecutor’s 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.