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). The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes at the same time, even though there was a history of punishment twice for the same kind of crime ( violent crime) around 2016, and even if there was a history of punishment in around 2016, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, the damage was not recovered, and the victims want to be punished by the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment is rendered, and considering the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unfeasible to the sentencing of the instant case, including the following circumstances:

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.