2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined the sentence within a reasonable scope, taking into account the legislative purport of the Juvenile Protection Act; the legislative purport of the instant crime; the background leading up to the instant crime; the Defendant’s confession and reflect; and there is no change in the sentencing conditions when compared with the lower court on the grounds that there is no reason to newly consider in the first instance court.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.