2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because of the lack of particular new sentencing data at the trial court, and the reason for sentencing revealed in the proceedings of the instant case (in particular, the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; the crime No. 1 in the holding of the lower judgment is in the concurrent relation between special larceny for which the judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; the crime No. 2 in the holding of the lower judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account all of the following factors: (a) the sentencing of the lower court is too unafford; and (b) the crime No. 2

Therefore, prosecutor's 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.