All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in August, and two years of suspended sentence in June; two years of suspended sentence in April; the Defendants’ two years of suspended sentence in April; the Defendants’ two years of suspended sentence in each order of education for the prevention of recidivism by children; 40 hours of each order of education for the prevention of recidivism by children; 1 year of employment restriction order issued by each child-related institution) is too 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. In full view of all the sentencing reasons stated by the lower court, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

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.