2. The fact that the defendant is still absent until the court of the trial, etc., and the defendant does not reflect his/her mistake by denying his/her mistake and leading to the investigation in an unfaithful manner at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency, etc., and that the damage does not have been recovered, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant. The fact that the defendant does not have the power to be punished for the same kind of crime, that the defendant does not have any power to exceed the fine, that the victim C of the damage to property does not want the punishment of the defendant, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unfasible as the prosecutor asserts.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That the “1. Defendant’s legal statement” in the summary of the evidence of 2 pages of the judgment below is obvious that it is a clerical error. Thus, it is corrected to delete it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.