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). In the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data, and the circumstances for which the prosecutor alleged the grounds for sentencing are unfair, are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court. The Defendant is deemed to have recognized and against all his mistake, and the Defendant is the first offender without any criminal history, and the Defendant seems to have faithfully committed school life and social life before the instant case, and the Defendant appears to have faithfully committed a traffic accident against drinking drivers on April 2016, the Defendant was diagnosed by the relevant large-scale body body body body’s marbrance, the body body body of the mouth, and the Defendant was unable to undergo human rights education by itself, preventing and preventing sexual harassment.

In full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unobcied and thus, it is unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and thus, it is reasonable to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.