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 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 Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the suspension period of execution of the same crime (sex crime) and there is no effort to recover damage, etc. are disadvantageous circumstances.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the lower court appears to have imposed a sentence on the Defendant in consideration of such circumstances; (b) there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; (c) the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and reflects the Defendant’s recognition of each of the instant crimes; and (d) the Defendant has a mental illness, such as a bipolartic disorder, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence; and (d) other circumstances that form the condition for sentencing as indicated in the instant case,

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the “specific number of persons” of the lower judgment is deemed to be “specific number of persons,” and the “the pertinent Article of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the criminal facts of 1.0” under Article 2 below is deemed to be “the pertinent Article of the Criminal Procedure Act and the choice of punishment for the criminal facts of 1.0”