2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The court below determined the punishment against the defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the defendant committed the crime against the victim, who is a juvenile familiar with the defendant; (b) even though the victim appears to have caused a considerable sense of shame; and (c) the victim did not agree with the victim or receive a letter of suspicion; (d) the degree of the type of punishment used by the defendant is not more severe; and (e) there was no history of external criminal punishment sentenced to a fine twice for a crime of different types; and (e) other favorable circumstances, including the defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, the circumstances following the crime, and the degree of progress of the crime.

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

shall not be assessed.

B. The reason why the prosecutor asserts in this court is unfair is the circumstances that the court below had already taken into account while determining the defendant's punishment, and it does not seem unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is even considering the materials presented in the course of the court's sentencing hearing.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing 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 appeal is without merit.