2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the sentencing of the first instance court is not changed, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court solely on the ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the fact that the agreement with the victim or that the damage was not completely recovered, the Defendant made efforts to recover the damage, such as deposit at a disadvantage against the victim, the Defendant’s primary offender, and the sentencing

shall not be deemed to exist.

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