2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant inflicted an serious injury on the victims who provided accommodation during the period of suspension of execution, and that the Defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be different from the lower court’s punishment in the first instance court, the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, the victim F did not wish to punish the Defendant, and all of the sentencing conditions in the records and theories of this case, including the Defendant’s age, health, sexual behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered, and it cannot be deemed unfair since the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible.

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

3. The prosecutor’s appeal to the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure; however, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the part of the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below that “the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Changwon District Court on November 17, 2017, with prison labor for eight months, with suspended sentence of two years,” and that of the summary of evidence, “1. A previous offense: inquiry about criminal history