The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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 reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that it differs from the view of the appellate court although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court seems to have determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant, who was unable to recover investment money, committed an offense committed for about three hours while under the influence of alcohol, (b) the Defendant did not recognize and repeat the offense; (c) the Defendant endeavored to recover damage; (d) the Defendant deposited two million won after the closing of pleadings in the lower court; and (e) there is a family member.

In light of the above legal principles, there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because a new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial and the court below did not have any change in the conditions of sentencing, and even in full view of the various sentencing grounds as stated by the lower court, the lower court’s sentencing was too unhued and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's sentencing and light allegation are without merit.

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.