2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 it.

B. The lower court, under the unfavorable circumstances that the Defendant had the same criminal history and committed each of the instant crimes during the period of suspension of execution, determined a sentence by taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and committed it during the period of suspension of execution, and was detained for a considerable period of time, and that all of the instant crimes were committed.

(c)

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to be the reason for the court below's determination of the defendant's punishment, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.