2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where 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). As new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances for which the prosecutor alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing have already been reflected sufficiently in the sentencing reasons of the lower court. In full view of all other circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing is too unjustifiable and unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is so far as the sentencing of the lower court goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 71(1)2 of the Child Uniforms and Child Uniforms and Child Uniforms and Child Uniforms and Child Uniforms Act, which is applicable to the crime in the judgment of the court below, was amended by Act No. 14925, Oct. 24, 2017; the above Act was enforced on April 25, 2018.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “the pertinent Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime of 1.0” in the application of the judgment of the court below ex officio shall be corrected to “Article 71(1)2 of the Child Uniforms Act”, “Article 71(1)2 of the former Child Uniforms Act (Amended by Act No. 14925, Oct. 24, 2017).”