2. In a case where there is 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s history of a fine for driving alcohol is five times; (b) the victim’s injury was relatively minor; (c) the victim was covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; (d) the Defendant agreed with the victims; (b) the Defendant’s mistake was against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, family relationship; and (d) the conditions of the sentencing specified in

As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing is unfair because it is too too un

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). However, upon ex officio under Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “Article 37 former part, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act” in the column of column among the application of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure as “Article 37 former part, Article 38(1)2, Article 38(2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act” is amended to “Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.”