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 with 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). In the instant criminal case, the injured party was injured by the aged, and the injured party’s family members wish to punish the Defendant is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the crime of this case, and deposited certain money in the court below for the victim.

After 190, there is no past record of criminal punishment other than those sentenced twice to a fine.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

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.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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.