2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that Defendant A’s representative has not extended the area without permission and has not restored the area without permission to its original state.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants recognized the crime of this case and reflected the mistake, the promotional fact that the building of this case can be extended to a double floor at the time of sale, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and there are no criminal records exceeding the same kind and fine; there is no change in special circumstances to change the punishment of the Defendant A more severe than the punishment of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as Defendant A’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion against the defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants 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.