2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, 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’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the degree of health, injury, and physical damage appears to be insignificant; the comprehensive insurance is purchased, the victim is deemed to have been compensated, and the victim is deemed to have been compensated; the Defendant appears to not re-offending; the Defendant’s detention appears to entail excessive difficulty; there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be reflected in the sentencing after the issuance of the lower judgment; the Defendant’s age, behavior, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the crime; and the prosecutor’s reasonable scope of sentencing cannot be accepted in light of the following circumstances.

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.