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 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the following: (a) the confession and reflect of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment; (c) some substitute payments have been granted to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant paid 4,00,000 won out of the unpaid wages to the Victim L after the lower judgment; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship; (c) circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime; (d) means and consequence; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate; and (e) there is no circumstance that the lower court’s sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded

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.