2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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.

Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from that of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). No change in the conditions of sentencing is made in comparison with the original judgment on the grounds that the materials to be newly considered in the health unit and the trial have not been submitted.

In full view of the factors revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfluent and thus, did not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of 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.