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’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of injury on February 6, 2015 and one year of suspended sentence, committed the same crime in the instant case during the period of suspended sentence, and the victim’s damage was restored, or the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim. However, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendant in light of the aforementioned circumstances, and there was no change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower court, and the Defendant appears to have recognized the crime in this case, and the degree of injury suffered by the victim was not relatively significant, and thus, it does not appear that the Defendant’s age, motive, method and method and scope of the instant crime in the instant case.

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.