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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and the lower court did not seem to have so far as the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, this is more so taking into account the fact that the Defendant was the first offender, the recognition of and against the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant was not in the leading position in the instant crime, the period of participation in the instant crime, and the frequency of participation was not long, and the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.