2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing is ex post facto, etc. of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Even though the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that is not different from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In this case, the prosecutor did not submit new materials at the lower court’s trial on the grounds that the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age, background, and circumstances of the Defendant’s environment, etc.

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.