2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s given that no new data on sentencing have been submitted in the trial, and considering all the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was unexplied and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 319(1) and Article 322 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the phrase “Article 319(1) and Article 322 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the phrase “an attempted intrusion upon residence” in the judgment of the court below is a clerical error under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act and Articles 322 and 319(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that it is obvious that the phrase “an attempted intrusion upon residence” is a clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is corrected ex officio to correct it.