2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated period, despite having the criminal history of the same kind of crime, and (b) again committed the instant crime; (c) the instant crime appears to be a dynamic crime while being committed; (d) the degree of the use of violence was relatively excessive; (c) the Defendant was receiving treatment of alcohol ozone after the instant crime; (d) the Defendant appears to be relatively solid relationship with the Defendant in light of the Defendant’s application submitted by his family members and employees; and (e) all factors revealed in the Defendant’s age, sex, living environment, and circumstances after the instant crime.

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing is unfair because it is too too un

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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 appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.