2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s given that new sentencing materials related to the favorable circumstances in the trial were not submitted, and the reason for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appears to be the circumstances that have already been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment by the lower court.

Also, in full view of the fact that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unhued.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the appeal is groundless