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 on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant committed a mistake in the first instance court; (b) the Defendant paid more than half of the amount of damage; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record corresponding to imprisonment.

On the other hand, in light of the background and method of the crime, the liability for the crime is not easy, the fact that there was a history of having been punished several times for the same crime, the fact that the crime was committed during the period of repeated crime due to the crime, and the fact that the crime was not fully recovered even after being given a considerable period of time after the crime was committed, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to be so excessive as to go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.