2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the records and arguments of this case, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion as it is too unfasible, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s negligence is higher than the Defendant’s negligence in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident; and (b) the Defendant rendered the above sentence on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning; and (c) there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered newly in the first instance judgment.

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