2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). A new sentencing data is not submitted in the trial, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment. The reason for sentencing asserted by a prosecutor appears to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.

In addition, in full view of the following factors: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the developments and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of 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.