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 it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime even if he/she was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime under the unfavorable circumstances; (b) the Defendant recognized and against his/her mistake in favorable circumstances; (c) the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes was 195,000 won; and (d) the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes was 195,000 won and the victims agreed to pay the amount of damage in full; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, etc. was determined by comprehensively taking into account various records, including the Defendant’s age, sex, and family relationship.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it difficult to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court until the appellate court was in the trial, and thus, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too uneas

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

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.