2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no significant change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing of Defendant after the lower judgment.

Examining the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if the Prosecutor considered all the circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable as it is unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.