2. 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined a punishment by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the extent of violence inflicted on the Defendant is relatively minor; (b) the Defendant was punished once by a fine of approximately 50 years prior to the imposition of a fine; and (c) the Defendant has

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the lower court, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to have been too unafed and unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.