2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court in comparison with the judgment, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the lower court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, in light of the foregoing, determined the sentence within a reasonable scope by fully considering all the circumstances of the Defendant’s sentencing, including the fact that the Defendant had no criminal record, the fact that the lower court recognized the offense, the degree of conduct, and the fact that the victim agreed with the lower court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

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.