The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the criminal method of the defendant was planned and interviewed by the summary of the grounds for appeal, and that the damage recovery was not made to the damaged cash withdrawal, etc., the punishment of the court below (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unfeasible

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfeasible and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is dismissed on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.