2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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). As no new data on sentencing have been submitted at the trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and circumstances in which the prosecutor claims the grounds for sentencing are alleged as unfair, are deemed to have already been reflected sufficiently in the reasons for sentencing of the lower court, the fact that the Defendant is recognized and against the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant has no record of the same offense, and other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings and records, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for the crime, etc., are considered to be unfair since the sentencing of the lower court is too unafford and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the reasonable scope

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, 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.