2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference from the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference from the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the prosecutor did not submit new materials at the lower court’s trial on the grounds that the prosecutor’s improper sentencing, as alleged by the lower court, appears to have already taken into account the Defendant’s age before and after and after the first instance’s argument.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.