2. The lower court rendered the above sentence, taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to his confession, the primary offender, and the fact that the amount of damage is a small amount in light of the method of the instant crime and the period of the commission; and (b) the Defendant’s confession, the primary offender, and the fact that the amount of damage is a small amount.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances leading to a crime, means and consequence, size of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court determined that the sentence imposed on the Defendant was appropriate, and that the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion, in light of the following: (a) the lower court’s punishment was determined as reasonable; and (b) the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, as asserted by a prosecutor, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it is so unreasonable to the extent that the lower court ought to be reversed.

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.