2. If 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.

(2) On July 23, 2015, 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 acknowledged that: (a) the instant crime was committed by the Defendant, his father, intended to kill the victim with the kitchen, and intended to kill the victim with the kitchen, and committed an attempted crime; (b) the Defendant did not seem to seriously reflect his or her wrong act; (c) the Defendant committed the injury to the victim; (d) there was no history of criminal punishment; (e) there was no injury inflicted on the victim; (e) the victim was suffering from mental illness, such as depression, damage network, and suplicious disease; (e) the Defendant appears to have affected the conclusion of the crime; and (e) the Defendant, in the process of dispute with the victim, first of all, threatened the victim and his family members; and (e.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, the reasons for the prosecution's participation in sentencing are the circumstances in which the court below has already taken full account of the defendant's punishment.