2. On November 30, 201, the Defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment on several occasions due to drinking driving in the past, and, in particular, on November 30, 201, had been sentenced to imprisonment for six months as a result of the crime of drinking driving and driving without a license, again committed the instant crime.

Furthermore, considering that Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was high to the extent of the grounds for revocation of license, the risk was high, and the actual occurrence of traffic accidents, there is no room to deem that Defendant’s sentence to suspend execution is somewhat low.

However, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It does not seem that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (b) the conditions of sentencing, such as the circumstances after the crime, are comprehensively considered.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.