2. The Defendant’s act of this case, based on the facts charged, is deemed to have driven a car while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.193% during blood and inflicted two weeks injury on the victims. In light of the substance of the crime, the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances are acknowledged, such as the fact that the criminal liability is heavy.

However, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct supervision, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The disadvantage of the above recognized defendant does not fall under any special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the judgment of the lower court, and it does not constitute a special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court, and it does not seem unfair because the lower court’s punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable, considering the circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.