2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that there exists an area unique to the first deliberation regarding sentencing determination in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, and the fact that there is an ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, etc., if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

However, the above circumstances were already launched in the oral proceedings of the court below, and there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the decision of the court below was made, the defendant recognized all crimes of this case and reflects the depth of the defendant, the victim suffered injuries necessary for medical treatment for two weeks. The damage caused by the crime of this case is relatively minor, the victim does not want to be punished, the vehicle of the defendant is covered by comprehensive insurance, the defendant is a primary offender who has no past record of criminal punishment, the defendant supports his family under the circumstances where economic situation is difficult, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., do not seem to be unfair since the sentence of the court below is too unfeasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.