The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for two years, and suspension of education for violent therapy for 40 hours) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable;

2. The Korean 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 first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all of the following factors: (a) the sentencing data as stated by the lower court and the fact that the Defendant agreed to the victims and the Defendant were in a trial; and (b) the Defendant’s age, environment, relationship with the victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the circumstances before and after the crime, the sentencing judgment of the first instance does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.

(However, the reasoning for sentencing in the fifth sentence of the lower judgment is that the term “first-class crime” is a clerical error in the “third-class crime”, and “second-class crime” is a clerical error in the “third-class crime”, and the term, “ April-1 and June 10”, which is the fifth sentence, is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “ April-2 and June 10”. As such, the upper limit of the sentencing range according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: The upper limit of the sentencing range (1 and June 6) according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: the sum of 1/2 (9 September) of the upper limit of the sentencing range of the concurrent crimes, which are concurrent crimes, under Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. It is corrected that it is ex officio corrected pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure).