2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too unfluent and so, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices (Provided, That in the judgment of the court below, “the damaged person” of the 3 criminal acts in the 4,5 criminal act was added by mistake, and “the injured person” and “the injured person” of the 4,5 criminal act in the 4,5 criminal act is a clerical error of each “D,” and thus, it is obvious that the “victim” and “the injured person” of the 6 criminal act is a clerical error of each “D.”