2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the degree of injury to a victim caused by the instant case (15 weeks) is not weak, but the Defendant is fully recognized to commit the instant crime, and the degree of the Defendant’s breach of duty is not relatively heavy, the victim was paid approximately KRW 13 million in total as temporary layoff benefits and medical care benefits from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, and the Defendant deposited KRW 3 million for the victim, and other factors revealed during the pleadings of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account the following factors: (a) the amount of punishment of the lower court is too low; and (b) the degree of the Defendant’s breach of duty is not more

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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

''