2. Determination

A. If 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 determined a sentence by taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of a crime, circumstances after a crime, etc. at a disadvantage of the fact that the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim; and (b) the fact that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (c) taking into account various sentencing conditions specified in

C. The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appear to be the circumstances that the court below had already taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment; there are no circumstances to deem that the above sentencing conditions have changed; and considering the above sentencing conditions, the court below’s sentence is deemed to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of 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.