2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation on sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The injury suffered by the victim due to the instant crime is relatively more serious, and the fact that the victim was unable to receive from the injured person, and that the injured person wants to be punished by the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the crime of this case, and deposited 5 million won for the victim, and the defendant has only been sentenced to a fine due to driving under drinking, etc. after 200, but has no record of being sentenced to the punishment above the same type of force or suspended execution.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and methods thereof, and all of the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too unreasonable as it is too low.

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