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 the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant was sentenced to 8 months or 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for obstruction of performance of official duties and violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), and committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, and the Defendant had been sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same offense, and the Defendant had a history of being subject to criminal punishment once as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act or violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving). Meanwhile, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendant, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, and deemed that the Defendant did not have any other reasonable motive to commit each of the instant crimes, including the following 3 years of imprisonment and discretion.

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.