2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as (i) the Defendant paid KRW 10,000 to the victim in the first instance trial; (ii) the Defendant’s repayment of dividends to the victim in the discretionary auction procedure based on the right to collateral security established by the victim would have been most damaged when the damaged person receives dividends; (iii) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment because the prosecutor failed to submit new data on sentencing; and (iv) the reasons for sentencing revealed in the course of the pleadings of the instant case are deemed unfair because the lower court excessively exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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, and it is so decided as per Disposition.