2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendants recognized the instant crime. The Defendants’ instant crime is in the concurrent relationship between each special larceny for which the judgment became final and the subsequent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the equity between the case where a judgment is rendered at the same time. The Defendants’ damage amount to the instant crime is 581,00 won in total in the case of the Defendant A, and 14,000 won in the case of the Defendant B, compared with the damage amount of the instant crime that became final and conclusive to each of the Defendants, it seems too harsh to punish the Defendants again due to the instant crime.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.