However, since only the prosecutor appealed on the ground of unreasonable sentencing only for the guilty portion of the judgment below, the dismissal of prosecution became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year, two years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, and 80 hours of violent therapy) of the lower court is too uneasy and unreasonable.

3. 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court, and in full view of the factors revealed in the instant argument, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfluent and so it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

4. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.