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 rendered a sentence by taking account of the following circumstances: (a) under the circumstances that the Defendant spawn the Defendant’s drinking while drinking in the police box, and that the nature of the offense is not good; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed a spawn behavior while recognizing the Defendant’s mistake; and (c) the Defendant’s health was bad; and (d) other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and means of the offense; and (e) circumstances after the offense

(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.