The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The court below's sentence (one year of imprisonment) against the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable.

Judgment

In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first instance judgment regarding sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant as stated in its reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances, and even if the Defendant was sentenced three times or more due to the same larceny, again commits each of the instant offenses during the repeated offense period, and did not reach an agreement with the victims, and there is no change in the special conditions of sentencing that make it possible for the lower court to change the sentence.

In full view of the following circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant acknowledges and reflects each of the instant offenses, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and contents thereof, attitude in investigative agencies and courts, the quality of the offense, the number of victims and the total amount of damage, the motive, means and consequence of the offense, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasy and unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.