2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). The lower court: (a) under the unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, the Defendant was punished by a fine due to the Defendant’s act of driving a driver without a license in 2013; (b) in particular, in 2016, the Defendant committed the instant crime while driving a driver without a license in 2016, resulting in a traffic accident and resulting in the suspension of execution; (c) took into account the favorable circumstances; (d) the circumstances leading up to the instant crime; (c) the driving distance was relatively short; (d) the Defendant’s family members and family members and family members; (e) the Defendant’s personal and physical damage was not caused by the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant’s family members and family members and family members and had no relationship.

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 the 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 un

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

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.