2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below 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). The lower court imposed a sentence by taking account of various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., on the part of the victim, who requested the Defendant to provide alcohol and alcohol without the intent to pay the cost, due to favorable circumstances that the Defendant, without having the intent to pay the cost, failed to wear the pattern in favor of the victim.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appear to be the circumstances that the court below had already taken into account when determining the defendant's punishment, and there are no circumstances to deem that the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the court below's punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is not acceptable, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unjustifiable.

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.