2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The instant crime is to provide the victims with ready-mixed, which was manufactured by Defendant A, working as the head of the quality control department of the stock company B, by arbitrarily adjusting the composition ratio of cement with low unit price to reduce the cost of manufacturing ready-mixed.

As stated in its holding, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant A’s environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines as revealed in the deliberation and arguments at the lower court and the party, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unfeasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.