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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by a prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s failure to submit new sentencing data unfavorable to the Defendant in the trial; (b) there is no change in the sentencing conditions unfavorable to the Defendant compared with the lower court; (c) the volume of blood alcohol concentration and the charge of the crime, etc. are deemed to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing; (d) the Defendant was first and against the victim; and (e) the victim of the obstruction of performance of official duties did not want to be punished by the Defendant at the trial; and (e) taking full account of other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.