2. Determination

A. 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 it.

B. The lower court, under the circumstances unfavorable to the victims, took into account the fact that the victims did not have performed their obligation to compensate for damages, took into account each of the favorable circumstances in which the Defendant did not have any records of the same kind of crime, and determined a sentence by taking into account the following factors: (a) the balance of sentencing with the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (b) the various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments

(c)

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to be the reason for the court below's determination of the defendant's punishment, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.