2. In a case where 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the nature of the instant crime is not somewhat weak in light of the motive of the instant crime; (b) the fact that the Defendant was first and depth against the Defendant; and (c) the fact that the police officer victimized by the obstruction of performance of official duties wanted the Defendant’s wife.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court in the trial, and taking full account of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable to the extent that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.