The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution, and confiscation) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the examination room or in the trial room. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unhued and so it is not recognized that the lower judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However) However, the application of the law of the judgment below is clearly deemed to be a clerical error in the last sentence of the item of “the pertinent law for a criminal fact and the choice of a sentence”, and thus, it is corrected to ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and to add each “a prison choice” following the “the embezzlement of stolen goods” and “the non-execution of mandatory insurance”).