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 sentenced the above sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided; (b) the Defendant was punished once every seven years prior to the instant crime; and (c) the same crime was committed only once every seven years prior to the instant crime; (b) the volume of drinking (0.169%) is high; (c) the crime of this case (violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) was committed during the suspension period; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension period.

Considering the above various conditions and other conditions of sentencing as seen earlier, the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and materials submitted in the trial, even if there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and is thus unreasonable.

Therefore, 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.