In this regard, since only the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion of the court below on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, the acquittal portion of the reasons in the decision of the court below which did not appeal all the defendant and the prosecutor should be transferred to the court of appeal in accordance with the principle of no appeal, but it should be deemed that the defendant and the prosecutor has already deserted from the object of attack

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remainder except the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court below on the acquittal part of the reasoning of the court below is not separately determined by the court below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant to the punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

3. 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of the unforeseen circumstances, and there is no new

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

4. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.