The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment is too uneased and unreasonable.

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 solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(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 at the time of examination and trial pursuant to the foregoing. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfluent so far as it goes beyond 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, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the application of the law of the court below is clear that the "Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the item of "the pertinent law of the facts of crime and the choice of punishment" is a clerical error in the "Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act," and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the