2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the circumstances revealed on the grounds of sentencing (the negligent negligence in the occurrence of traffic accidents, the fact that it seems that the occurrence of traffic accidents seems not to have been relatively heavy, the degree of damage is relatively minor, and the Defendant’s vehicle is covered by comprehensive insurance), including all of the sentencing conditions (such as the fact that the Defendant withdraws an appeal on the first day of the trial on the trial date, and led to the Defendant’s confession of all crimes on the first day of the trial, and the Defendant did not have any other criminal record except the summary order of KRW 700,000 as a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents on August 23, 2010; the Defendant appears to have recovered from damage through the comprehensive automobile insurance of the Defendant; the Defendant’s health condition, etc.). The lower court’s assertion that the Defendant left the site of the Defendant’s vehicle to find out the circumstances leading to the appeal is unreasonable, without considering all the circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.