2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence in consideration of various sentencing conditions, including the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, that the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and divided his/her depth, that he/she committed a serious death to the victimized police officers, that he/she does not want punishment against the Defendant, that he/she was the most and his/her employee, and that he/she had no record of criminal punishment before the instant case, and that there was no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be considered for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unhued.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.