2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the Defendant appears to have made considerable efforts to recover damage to the victim during the investigation process, in full view of the reasons for the sentencing revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the following: (a) the lower court’s sentencing was too unafford and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (b)

It does not appear.

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