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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendants did not receive a written indictment from the victim until then, the lower court appears to have suspended the sentence in light of the circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc., and there is no new circumstance or circumstantial relationship to change the sentence in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as indicated in the arguments of the court below and the party branch, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unfair because it is too uneasible.

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.