2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct judgment, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, and the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant asserted by the prosecutor do not constitute a special change of circumstances that can change the lower court’s punishment after the sentence of the lower court was rendered, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime were taken into account, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is unfair because the Defendant is too uneasible.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.