2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following facts are relatively excessive: (a) the degree of injury suffered by the victim D due to the instant occupational injury and crime; (b) the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the said victim or receive a letter from the said victim; (c) the Defendant violated the Automobile Compensation Security Act on August 31, 2015; and (d) the Defendant committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving Security Act); and (d) the Defendant appears to have been subject to reasonable punishment on each of the instant offenses, and (e) the lower court appears to have committed an unlawful change in circumstances, including the motive and scope of the Defendant’s benefits.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure).