2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the blood alcohol concentration level and control background, the lower court sentenced the above punishment in consideration of various sentencing conditions, including the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have driven under the influence of alcohol considerably; (b) the Defendant appears to have been punished twice by a fine due to the same kind of drunk driving; (c) the Defendant has been able to recognize and reflect his/her mistake; (d) the Defendant was showing an attitude to recognize and reflect his/her mistake; (b) the occurrence of a traffic accident was not occurred due to drinking driving; and (c) the Defendant has no criminal record of suspended sentence or heavier; and (d) there

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unhued.

The prosecutor's assertion 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 ground that it is without merit.