The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for up to eight months, suspension of execution for two years, suspension of compliance driving for 40 hours, community service hours for 80 hours) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court, and in full view of the factors revealed in the instant argument, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfluent and so it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.

[4] In accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the phrase “the application of the law” in the part on “the choice of punishment of 1.0” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to be “the imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents” and “the imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents” shall be deemed to be “the imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents,” and “the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act” shall be deemed to be “the two concurrent crimes”