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 lower court determined a punishment by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the following: (a) the instant crime committed by the Defendant was committed in the form of larceny, and (b) the Defendant was committed with a knife, etc. for the purpose of forcibly taking money and valuables against an unspecified person; (c) the act of robbery was committed in preparation for robbery; and (d) the method and form of the crime was very dangerous and bad; and (c) the crime was committed in preparation for robbery.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was too unfeasible and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

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

3. In conclusion, 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.