2. Determination

A. 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the amount of the money acquired through the instant crime is reasonable, as well as the fact that the victim could not live together with the victim, and that the victim did not recover from damage, etc., and that the Defendant recognized the instant crime.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below. In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive for committing the crime, circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the sentencing reasons revealed in the proceedings of the present case, and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court’s sentence is too unfeasible and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.