The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too uneased and unreasonable. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the 40 hours during the compliance driving lectures) is too uneased.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unfair as it is too unaffortuous, even if it is considered that the prosecutor’s allegation was made based on the grounds of appeal, considering the following: (a) the sentence was determined within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant agreed upon with the victims; (c) the victims wanted to take advantage of the Defendant’s wife; and (d) the Defendant does not repeat again after disposing of the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing 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 ordered as per Disposition.