2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the ground that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the reasons for sentencing asserted by the prosecutor seem to have been sufficiently considered in the lower court’s determination of punishment.

In light of the background of the instant crime, the degree of alcohol level, and the scale of the accident, etc. of the Defendant’s blood, etc., even though the lower court’s agreement was concluded with all victims, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the juvenile protective disposition did not have any previous convictions once more than time, and comprehensively taking into account all other factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior and environment, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing, which ordered surveillance of protection along with the suspension of execution of imprisonment, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too uneasible.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.