2. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). From such perspective, the sentencing of the lower court was determined on two occasions in consideration of the following factors: (a) during the suspension period of execution, such as the fact that the sentencing of the lower court was under the same conditions as that of the Defendant (the Defendant has driven several times; (b) was under the influence of alcohol; and (c) was under the influence of alcohol and non-licensed driving on two occasions during the suspension period of execution; (d) while the instant trial was pending; (c) there was a high alcohol level among blood alcohol level; and (d) there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence was pronounced.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion as it is frightened.

It does not appear.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, however, the "the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be added to the "ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure" and "the selection of punishment of 1.0 and the reduction of the amount of punishment of 1.1."