2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the means of access leased by the Defendant was actually used for licensing is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant’s sexuality; (b) taking into account the first offense that the Defendant was the first offense that the Defendant had no previous criminal record into account; and (c) taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the instant crime, means and consequence; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court did not have to find any circumstances such as deeming that the sentence imposed by the Defendant was reasonable; and (b) deeming that the lower court’s judgment of sentencing

Therefore, since the court below’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable, the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

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