2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime is committed with the victim’s satisfy with the improvement of the defendant, and the degree of injury inflicted by the defendant is too heavy, and there is a significant degree of punishment for the defendant, and there is a history of punishment for the defendant several times. However, it is recognized that the defendant recognized the instant crime, while the defendant is against his own mistake, the defendant is the mother of the victim, all of the criminal records of the defendant’s punishment are attributable to conflict with the victim, and the defendant’s other children’s efforts to prevent recidivism is deemed old and healthy, and there is no reason to view the prosecutor’s unfair character and behavior and circumstances after the instant crime.

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