특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of lecture attendance order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.
2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, 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 go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. It is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion, it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all the reasons for sentencing stated by the court below, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no room for the prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed without pleading pursuant to Article 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is obvious that the prosecutor's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.