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 where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the background, content, risk, etc. of the instant crime. Meanwhile, the lower court appears to have determined a sentence against the Defendant in light of the aforementioned circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that can be considered in sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower court, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and there was no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and thus, it does not seem that the lower court’s sentencing was too unreasonable or unreasonable in full view of all the following: the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, method and method of the instant crime, and the following circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.