2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within an appellate court’s ex post facto and aesthetic nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the grounds that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, in view of the fact that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s reasoning on the records and the conditions revealed in the process of the instant sentencing and the sentencing judgment.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below is assessed.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 117,731,559 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant’s appeal is not reasonable (Article 117,731,559 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the plaintiff’s appeal stated KRW 1,00,000 in the damage column No. 12 of the attached Table No. 12 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the part of the crime of the judgment below on the ground that the victim’s damage amount is KRW 8,00,000 and KRW 3.