2. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, no new sentencing data was submitted by this court and no particular change exists in sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment.

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant's family members and the defendant's family members and neighbors' body are likely to cause serious danger to the life and body of the defendant's family members, the crime of this case is not committed.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was aware of and against the crime, that the defendant was the first offender with no criminal force, that the defendant was suffering from depression, and that the denial and the dispute seems to have reached the crime of this case somewhat contingent, immediately after the crime, that the family and the defendant did not endeavor to promote early, and that the family and the defendant did not want to be punished against the defendant, and that the court also want to take the action against the defendant, are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and the various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records and arguments, even if the Prosecutor considered the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s sentence to the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is excessively unhutiled.

The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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