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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As no new data on sentencing have been submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the lower court, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the reason for sentencing unfair are deemed to have already been reflected in the judgment of the lower court; the Defendant is the primary offender; the Defendant was making efforts to recover damage by remitting the amount damaged by the victim; the Defendant did not seem to have obtained any particular benefits from the instant crime; the Defendant did not seem to have obtained any specific benefits from the instant crime; the Defendant’s motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc. do not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion by deeming the sentencing of the lower court to be excessively unfilled.

Therefore, 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.