2. Determination as to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing

A. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing. As such, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The Defendant has a history of violating traffic laws and regulations several times, and on November 27, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of eight months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and was sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year and one year and one month after being released from the prison, and the quality of the crime is not good.

However, the defendant shows his attitude to reflect in depth, and it seems that the crime of this case did not cause specific dangers to road traffic. The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as sentencing factors in the grounds of appeal are considered to have been sufficiently considered in the original court’s decision. The court below’s punishment is determined to be appropriate in light of the defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal records.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion 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.