2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and circumstances in which a prosecutor claims on the grounds of unfair sentencing, such as the place where the occurrence of a traffic accident occurred, the damage therefrom, and the agreement with the bereaved family members, etc. are already reflected in the grounds for sentencing. The circumstances leading up to the traffic accident (the passage of a pedestrian who does not have a signal signal, etc.) (the passage of a small kid victim immediately before and after the start of the traffic accident (the front of the traffic accident in this case where the victim was parked on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle did not discover the crosswalk, which led to the traffic accident in this case). Comprehensively considering the circumstances such as the occurrence of the traffic accident, reflects, deposit, etc.’s effort to pay the insurance proceeds, the Defendant’s age and circumstances, etc.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.