2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances in matters on which the conditions of sentencing are attached after the sentence of the lower judgment.

Considering the fact that the Defendant returned the full amount to the victim of the benefits acquired by the Defendant, that there was no record of crime after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a punishment for a crime of fraud in 197, a fine in 199, and a crime of conspiracy of a forged official document in 199, and that there was no record of crime, and that the above record of punishment was not a crime related to licensing, the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion even considering the circumstances asserted by the Prosecutor on the grounds of

subsection (b) of this section.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and all is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.