2. Determination

A. According to the records, the lower court determined a sentence within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing guidelines, taking into account various factors such as: (a) the Defendant was unable to repay the obligation to the victim; (b) the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim; (c) the Defendant’s mistake was pened and contradictory; (d) the Defendant did not evade or exempt the actual payment of the obligation due to the crime; and (e) the primary offender

B. In full view of the fact that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial at the trial court, and that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the victim’s bereaved family members and their branch members after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered to the lower court, it does not seem that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfeasible.

C. Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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