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). Although the contents of the evidence presented by the Defendant are the core contents of the judgment on the existence of a crime in the facts charged, the Defendant was the first offender, and there are circumstances that consider the motive and circumstance of the crime, considering the fact that the evidence presented in this case was not systematically supported, the lower court was sentenced to the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account such circumstances, and there is no significant change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the lower court, the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair due to excessive hurdle.

3. According to the 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.