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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the health department and the trial on the grounds of the foregoing legal doctrine, and the reason for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appears to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.

In addition, even though the defendant's liability for the crime is not weak, in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the circumstances and motive leading to the crime of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too narrow and so it cannot be said that the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.