2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness exists in the area unique to the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and the fact that there is no change in the 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 the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) It is recognized that the Defendant had the history of being sentenced to the second fine for the same kind of crime, the damage recovery was not supported, and there was no agreement with the victim.

However, the above circumstances were already launched in the oral proceedings of the court below, and there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the decision of the court below was made, the defendant's mistake and reflects the defendant, the amount of damage is relatively minor, the defendant has little economic benefits from the crime of this case, it is difficult for the defendant to have no economic benefits, the health conditions of the defendant are not good, the defendant has no previous convictions exceeding the fine, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below is too unfeasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.