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 determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, (ii) the injury inflicted on the Defendant, (iii) the injury inflicted on the victim, and (iv) the victim’s negligence in violation of the signal signal is deemed to have contributed considerable to the occurrence of the accident; (iv) the vehicle operated by the Defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; (v) the vehicle is covered by the Defendant’s vehicle accident insurance; and (v)

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is. Thus, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below is too unfeasible.

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.