2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the court did not submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the argument of the instant case are comprehensive, it is too unfford that the sentencing of the first instance court goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). However, the part of “this Chewing” of the 3 conduct of the judgment below ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure No. 1 of the Criminal Procedure No. 1 of the column for the crime history of the judgment below.

“Dismissal” is corrected to mean dismissal.