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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Such types of crimes include the means of access, cellular phones are abused for various crimes such as illegal gambling site operation, illegal private light, and the social harm is serious; and the account connected with the means of access leased by the Defendant was used for illegal private light.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, and there are no criminal records exceeding the same kind and fine, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relations, etc. as well as various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings and records, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of 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.