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 the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendants continued to commit the instant crime in violation of the positive law for a considerable period of time, etc., but the Defendants appear to have committed the instant crime, while there are circumstances that may be somewhat taken into account the circumstances leading up to the instant crime. Defendant A did not have any history of criminal punishment other than those sentenced once to a fine for violating the Road Traffic Act prior to the instant crime. In full view of the following: (a) Defendant A’s age, sex, environment, motive and method of the instant crime; (b) the motive and method of the instant crime; and (c) records and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court did not have any reasonable discretion to the Defendants.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.