2. In light of our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists an area unique to the first instance court’s determination of sentencing. In addition, in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s judgment. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the court below’s argument that the amount of sentencing obtained by the Defendant as asserted by the prosecutor, but is not completely recovered from the Defendant’s age of injury, and there is no reason to view that the Defendant did not have any reasonable motive to recover the Defendant’s injury to the Defendant’s health and health of the Defendant.

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 ordered as per Disposition.