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). It is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was released from prison after having been sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime, and even during the period of repeated crime after having been released from prison for the same crime, etc.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime at the investigation stage; (b) the Defendant reflects his mistake; (c) the damage incurred by the instant crime is not much serious; and (d) the gain actually acquired by the Defendant appears to be a small amount; (b) the equity of sentencing with the same and similar incidents; and (c) there are no special circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and (d) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and conduct; (b) the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by

3. In conclusion, 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.