2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and 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 falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that Defendant B, as a representative director, had a considerable area of extension without permission, and has not restored the portion of extension without permission until now.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants recognized the crime of this case and reflected the mistake, the promotional fact that it is possible to extend the building to a double floor at the time of sale of this case, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case; Defendant B did not have any past record of criminal punishment exceeding the same kind and fine; Defendant B did not change any special circumstances to change the sentence heavier than that of the lower court after the sentence of the lower judgment; Defendant B’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, etc. and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, it is difficult to view that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion against the defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.