The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution, forty hours of violent therapy lectures, forty hours of community service order) declared by the court below is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

Although the crime of this case requires a severe punishment for a fatal crime committed by assaulting his father who is still in existence, the court below also ordered the defendant to give violence treatment lectures and provide community service in consideration of these circumstances, and there is no change in new circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below in the trial of the party.

When comprehensively taking into account such circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as indicated in the hearing of the lower court and the party deliberation, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or that it is unfair because it is too low.

3. According to the 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.