2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the grounds that new sentencing data are not submitted in health class and the first instance court, and there is no change in the original judgment and the conditions of sentencing since the new sentencing data are not submitted, and considering all favorable circumstances including the Defendant’s age and the first instance court’s reasoning for sentencing, it cannot be deemed unfair to the extent that the sentence imposed by the lower court

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.