2. Determination

A. In a case where 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 it.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., under which the Defendant was committed, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant had the same criminal record, that the Defendant did not make efforts to recover from damage, and that the Defendant was a minor injury, and that the Defendant committed the crime of this case by contingency, and taking into account various sentencing conditions as indicated in the records and arguments.

(c)

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to be the reason for the court below's determination of the defendant's punishment, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the 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.