The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 160 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a lecture) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if 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 reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as stated in the instant records and arguments, the sentencing of the lower court was too unfford and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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.