2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment regarding sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, since the lower court’s sentencing is too unfilled and it is recognized that the sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.