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). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

On December 11, 2018, the Act on the Acceptance of Criminal Crimes in this case and the Act on the Acceptance of Criminal Crimes in this case are identical to the defendant, and the date and time of the crime in this case are adjacent to the date and time of the crime in this case, and the victim of the crime in this case is equivalent to KRW 74,450,000. On the other hand, the victim of the crime in this case and the amount of damage are equivalent to KRW 2,4450,000,000, the punishment would not have been aggravated if the crime in this case was adjudicated simultaneously

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances and results of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and family relationship, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is too unhued and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.