2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). As no new data on sentencing have been submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and circumstances in which the prosecutor claims the grounds for sentencing are unfair, are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court; the victim is deemed not to have wanting to be punished by the Defendant; the Defendant is the primary offender; the Defendant is the primary offender; the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, degree of damage, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the lower judgment’s sentencing is too unfilled.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.