2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within an appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Even though the first instance sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, to refrain from sentencing without any difference from the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering that the first instance court did not submit new data on sentencing, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s subsequent review of the records and the conditions revealed in the process of the instant case and the relevant sentencing sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s reasonable sentencing sentencing judgment.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below is assessed.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is not accepted.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.