2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). In full view of the various circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed as excessively beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking account of the following factors: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial; and (b) the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor for reasons of sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court; (c) there is no criminal history of the Defendant; (d) there is no same type of crime; and (d) the Defendant is deemed to have been involved in the operation of the “D”; and (d) there are other circumstances to take into account the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) there are various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing in the sentencing hearing process after the crime.

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.