2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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). The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he/she had a history of criminal punishment of fines seven times for the same crime, and the Defendant requires a corresponding punishment for the Defendant in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he/she had a history of criminal punishment of fines on the same kind of crime; (b) the beer disease, which is a dangerous object, and the

However, the result of the injury or damage caused by the act of the defendant does not focus on the result, the victim G does not want to be punished by the victim, and there is no power to punish the defendant more severe than a fine.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there are no new changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, living environment, health status, and family relation, as shown in the above circumstances and the deliberation by the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion or is too uneasible and unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.