The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 7 million) of the lower court is too unfilled 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 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, the reason for sentencing in the judgment of the court below is clearly stated that "the damage has been recovered in full" in the fourth sentence is a clerical error of "the victims have recovered most of the damage and have not want to be punished by the defendant," and such correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.