2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence against each Defendant by taking into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant; (iii) the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is seriously against the Defendant; and (iv) the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is seriously reflected;

In addition to the above sentencing conditions, even when comprehensively considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in special circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Therefore, it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment to be unfair as it is too una

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.