The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution in October, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) declared by the court below is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. If 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.

Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from that of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). We examine the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the foregoing.

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

Furthermore, it appears that from the beginning that it was not planned to have been prepared for the obvious purpose of having the person under no criminal punishment, and that the defendant was not reported to the police directly, that the defendant was recognized as a substitute for his mistake in the first instance trial, that there was no particular criminal history for the defendant, and that the sentencing cause revealed in the records and arguments of this case is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below was too unfeasible.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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