2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial; and (b) the circumstances for which a prosecutor claims for the reason of sentencing are being unfair; (c) the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even during the period of suspension of execution due to the same kind of crime is deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court; (d) the Defendant was disadvantageous to the Defendant; (e) the degree of prosecution is not excessive; and (e) the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment upon agreement with the victim; and (e) other factors that form the conditions of sentencing in the sentencing process of the lower court, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, degree of damage, means and consequence of crime.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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 prosecutor's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.