(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Sentencing elements asserted by a prosecutor appear to have been fully considered by the lower court in determining the sentence, and this court did not have submitted new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.

Furthermore, in full view of the records and arguments of the instant crime, including the following facts: (a) the Defendant appears to have recognized all the instant crime; (b) there is no criminal record prior to the suspension of execution; (c) the Defendant has paid the full amount of damage to G; and (d) the Defendant has agreed to pay the full amount of damage to the victim G; and (c) the equity in the case of the instant crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., a suspended sentence of two years on November 22, 2019, which became final and conclusive by sentence of two years; and (d) the Defendant has to consider the equity in the case of receiving the judgment; and (e) the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the form and circumstances of the instant crime; and (e) the victim’s physical or mental damage is not good; and (e) even if the sentencing factors unfavorable to the Defendant are considered, the sentencing of the

The prosecutor’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing of the court below is not accepted.

2. The final appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.