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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following factors are considered as both the sentencing factors of the first instance judgment, and the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant alleged by the Prosecutor are deemed to have been considered as the sentencing factors of the first instance judgment. There is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted

Considering the circumstances and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court of the first instance exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court is too unhued.

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