2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this regard, the Defendant had several times of punishment, including, but not limited to, the suspension of execution due to fraudulent acts similar to the Defendant, fines, etc., and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution due to the same crime, even though it is recognized that the Defendant led to the instant crime. However, even though the Defendant is committed during the period of suspended execution due to the same crime, the amount of damage in this case is relatively large, and the Defendant’s repayment of and agreement on the amount of damage to the victim, the Defendant appears to have suffered from mental illness, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relations, circumstances after the instant crime, etc. are considered too unfair and there are no grounds for the prosecutor’s argument.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.