2. Determination

A. According to the records, the court below determined punishment within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, taking into account the following factors: (a) in the case of a false accusation, the crime seriously infringes on the national legal interest, which is a proper exercise of the State’s trial function, and seriously threatens the legal stability of the crime to avoid; (b) the nature of the crime is inferior; (c) the crime was not committed against the victim; (d) the crime was not committed against the victim; (d) the crime was not committed against the victim; (e) the crime was committed against the victim without any criminal history; (e) the motive leading up to the crime; (e) the circumstances after the crime; and

B. Although there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial court, and considering the various reasons for sentencing revealed in the oral proceedings, the lower court’s sentencing is too unhued and so it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

C. Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.