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 Defendant committed the instant crime without being familiar with the Defendant during the period of suspension of execution, and the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, there is a favorable condition for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it, and the degree of damage is relatively heavy.

In addition, in full consideration of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the crime; and (c) the punishment imposed by the lower court is within the scope of the appropriate punishment in accordance with the Defendant’s liability; and (d) the punishment imposed by the lower court is so unreasonable as it is too uneasible to it; and (e) there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing 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.