2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015) solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the nature of the instant crime committed by the victim, who is one’s subordinate employee, by taking advantage of the state of impossibility of resisting the victim under the influence of alcohol, but considering the circumstances that the Defendant retired, went against the company after the instant case, and sought a letter, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s favorable sentence is too unreasonable to escape.

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.