Judgment

In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first instance judgment regarding sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and even though there are many criminal records of having been punished for the same kind of offense, the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, including the fact that the Defendant committed again and again the same crime during the period of repeated offense due to the same offense, and there is no change in the special conditions of sentencing that can change the sentence of the lower court at the same time.

In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and contents thereof, attitude in investigation agency and court, crime quality, victims’ recovery from damage, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.