2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). The lower court determined a sentence by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there is no new circumstance that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and instead, the Defendant agreed with the victim B in the trial, and deposited a considerable amount of money for the victimized police officers.

In addition, considering all the factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, the sentencing of the lower court is too unfasible and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the conclusion prosecutor is dismissed.