2. The judgment of the Defendant, by negligence, sustained a serious injury to the victim, was not covered at the time of the accident, and there was a record of causing the accident of Madtoba, and the victim wanted to be punished for severe punishment against the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing a crime, and is against the defendant, and that the defendant paid approximately KRW 12.5 million to the victim for medical expenses, etc. at the court below, and partly restored the victim's damage. On October 11, 2019, the court made efforts to recover damage by depositing KRW 1.5 million for the victim, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for about 20 years after 198 is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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