2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment in consideration of various sentencing conditions, such as the number of used concrete buried illegally in the instant case, which was punished by the Defendant for the same or similar crime, and the quantity of the waste concrete buried illegally in the instant case ( approximately 33 tons).

In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial of the party are considered, there is no meaningful change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below.

In addition, taking into account the following factors: Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social bond, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the fact that the disposal of garbage after the instant crime was completed, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, is unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.