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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

Considering that the Defendant’s recognition of the crime and reflects against the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, the circumstances and consequence of the instant crime, including the circumstances after the crime, age, character and conduct, and circumstances of various sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by so doing.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is groundless.

[However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the judgment of the court below to ex officio "the pertinent Article of the Act on 1. Criminal Facts" shall be corrected as "the pertinent Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime of 1. Criminal Facts"]