2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment, and if 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 reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference in the lower court and the sentencing conditions since new materials were not submitted in health class and the appellate court did not change, and the Defendant’s repetitive crime appears to arise from the lower court’s low intellectual level. In full view of the favorable circumstances, including the fact that the degree of assault used by the victim and the Defendant’s injury caused by the Defendant’s crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to the extent of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.