2. Unless the first instance court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or the first instance court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to be unreasonable in full view of the newly discovered materials in the appellate court’s appellate court’s determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s determination of sentencing, unless there exist circumstances such as deeming that it is unfair

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that a new sentencing data was not submitted at the appellate court of this case. Although the defendant left two or more times and is not likely to be subject to criticism due to his/her traffic accidents, he/she is hard to say that he/she does not repeat the crime by taking account of the following: (a) the defendant's mistake in depth; (b) the victims have not want to be punished against the defendant; (c) the victims and his/her family members want not want to be punished against the defendant; and (d) the victim's family members and his/her family members were relatively frightened; (d) the reasons revealed in the sentencing process of this case, including the fact that there was no specific force to punish once in violation of the Military Service Act in 2010; and (d) the defendant's age, form and conduct, and scope of his/her family relation, etc.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.