2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, 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 the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant had the history of having been punished for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the instant crime, and the Defendant paid the victim a total of KRW 5.8 million from January 201 to May 201, and KRW 1 million from January 13, 2016 and each of KRW 1,00,000,000 from January 13, 2016 to May 22, 2016, and additionally repaid KRW 50,000 on April 4, 2016 and May 22, 2016, and the Defendant committed a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act after 2004, which is favorable to the Defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and methods thereof, and all of the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and the trial process, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, or is too unreasonable.

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.