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). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, including the following: (a) the Defendants’ planned role as part of the crime; (b) the occurrence of an intentional accident; and (c) the nature of the crime by defrauding insurance money; (d) the amount of fraud is considerable; (c) the Defendants do not have any previous charge; (d) the victims have repaid the full amount of damage; and (e) Defendant A and B have agreed to pay the full amount of damage to the victims; and (e) the fact that they are against the time of the commission of the crime; (b) there is no other circumstance that may be newly considered in the first instance trial; and (c) in full view of the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as expressed in the sentencing trial process of the lower court, such as the motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (d) the lower court’

3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit. Thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.