The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (a two years of suspended sentence in August, and a one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is unreasonable as it is excessively unfortunate.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that differs from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The lower court did not change the nature of the crime, such as embezzlement of funds against the victim’s trust while working for the victim’s Association, and the Defendant exceeded the scope of the previous criminal judgment and did not have any reasonable discretion in light of the fact that the prosecutor has already been sentenced to criminal punishment for a period of up to two years and two hundred million won.

It does not seem that there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and therefore, the sentencing of the court below is respected.