2. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, no new sentencing data was submitted by this court and no particular change exists in sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment.

The crime of this case is very serious because the defendant's body was fighting with the victim on the ship, who fell at the sea and caused the death of the victim.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, circumstances such as the fact that the defendant paid the agreed amount to the victim and the bereaved family members of the victim are not subject to the punishment of the defendant, the fact that there are some aspects to consider the circumstances of the crime of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the fact that the defendant is in the time of and against the crime in this court are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and the various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, even if the Prosecutor considered the circumstances asserted as the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed as going beyond the reasonable scope of discretion due to excessively unhutiled discretion.

The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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