2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). It is recognized that the Defendant embezzled the same kind of business property, such as the strawer, knife, knife, knife, etc. equivalent to KRW 12,217,00 in total, but did not agree with the victim.

However, there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal seem to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too uncomfortable and unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.