2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is desirable to respect the determination of sentencing in the case where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant’s criminal record of violence amounts to 19 times, and the Defendant’s damage to public goods and interference with the performance of official duties are also included in several times, and in particular, one year of suspended sentence in the year of imprisonment, and two years of suspended sentence in the year of compulsory indecent act committed in the year of 2011, and two years of suspended sentence in the year of suspended sentence in the 2013, and the fact that the damage was not recovered is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the defendant's favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the crime, the degree of damage, the fact that the defendant is not severe, and the defendant's mistake that he will not repeat the crime after being treated with a mental therapy for the purpose of enhancing the drinking room, the sentencing of the court below, which added the community service order and the protection observation while suspending the execution of imprisonment, is within the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In addition, there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be newly considered in the trial.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court of original judgment is too unfasible because it is too unfasible.

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.