2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is desirable 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In order to eradicate public peace at the time of public power, it is necessary to strictly punish crimes obstructing the performance of official duties. Considering that the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking advantage of his motive and spitation, etc., even though the Defendant is considered to have committed the instant crime, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by contingency, and is in profoundly contradictory to the Defendant’s confession, and that there is no identical criminal history for the Defendant, considering all the conditions of sentencing as expressed in the arguments, such as the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and the circumstances surrounding the instant crime.

In addition, there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be newly considered in the trial.

Therefore, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court of original judgment is too unfasible because it is too unfasible.

3. Accordingly, 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.