2. In a case where there is no change in 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the lower court stated, there is a considerable possibility of criticism, such as threatening the same victim, without being aware of the fact that the Defendant is under the suspension of execution due to injury or special intimidation, even though he/she was under the suspension of execution due to injury or special intimidation, the Defendant’s perception of all of the instant crimes from the investigative agency is in profoundly against his/her mistake, and the type of the instant assault is not relatively heavy, and the victim of the instant crime who was his/her spouse

In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, means and method of crime, result, circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unhued and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.