2. In a case where 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The victim C is punished by the Defendant; and the Defendant has already been punished by a fine of one million won due to a crime of intrusion upon residence (the crime of intrusion upon a female student room) similar to the method of the instant crime.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case and is against the defendant, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the above fines once, and the defendant does not display photographs taken by him in any other place, and thus the second damage has not occurred.

The court below appears to have determined the punishment in light of the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from the punishment of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is deemed appropriate, and the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.