2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances in which a new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial before the trial did not change compared with the lower court’s sentencing conditions, and the prosecutor alleged unfair reasons for sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing reasons of the lower court. Each of the crimes in the instant case appears to have been committed somewhat contingent as they were in dispute with, or separately from, the victim B who was the pet at the time of the Defendant. In the case of special violence, the victims did not suffer direct damage, and the value of the damaged glass window is relatively small, “In the case of the case of the case of the victim and the defendant,” and the defendant acknowledged the crime against the victim and the defendant, and the circumstances in which the defendant’s age was found to be excessive, as a reasonable means and scope of the Defendant’s criminal sentencing, as a result.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.