2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances and circumstances favorable to the Defendant, as stated in its reasoning, after examining the victim B and F (the Defendant and the victim B’s children) with normal witness, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant. The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, such as the seriousness of the instant crime committed by using a dangerous knife, etc., as well as the fact that the Defendant was unable to have

There is no special change in sentencing conditions that can change the sentence of the court below for the first time.

In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the court below and the party proceedings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, crime, motive of the crime, means and consequence, etc., it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unfasible and exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.