2. Determination

A. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation on sentencing in light of the fact that there is an area unique to the determination of sentencing, and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, etc., in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing 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, etc.). (b) The Defendant arbitrarily transferred the said machinery to a third party even if he/she was granted a loan from Gyeongnam-nam Co., Ltd., Ltd. to set up a collateral security right on the machinery of KRW 70 million in total appraised as a security, even if he/she

However, the above circumstances were already launched during the oral argument of the lower court, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the Defendant recognized the error of the lower court, the Defendant appears to have provided a security to the Defendant for the commission of the act, and there is no criminal record exceeding the same kind of criminal record or fine, and the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the act, means and consequence of the act, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. are considered, and it does not seem unfair since the sentence of the lower court is too uneasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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 decided as per Disposition.