The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was possible to find out that the victim under 59 years of age was in a little state of exploitation, there was a possibility of expectation that the victim's face is the death of the victim.

Nevertheless, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant could have predicted the result of death.

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the person causing injury on the ground is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the date and time as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and at the place as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and thereby, caused the victim to suffer bodily death due to a brupt by the Heal heart disease, etc. from the Busan Medical Center located in Busan Metropolitan City 359, based on the World Cup 359, around December 31, 2017.

2) The lower court’s judgment, based on the legal principles and circumstances stated in its holding, was likely to have predicted the result of the death of the Defendant only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

This part of the charges was not guilty on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable, and there were errors of misunderstanding of facts, such as the grounds for appeal

subsection (b) of this section.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee on the basis of Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Act on the Organization of Court Organizations on the Criteria of Sentencing (hereinafter “Sentencing Criteria”) are prescribed by the Act in order to realize “fair and objective sentencing in which the people can trust.”