2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). The lower court takes into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the Defendant has been punished by drinking or driving without a license for a license for a drinking or driving without a license for the latest two times; and (iii) the Defendant is again driving without a license after the final judgment became final and conclusive; and (iv) the Defendant would not commit a violation in the future, taking into account the following circumstances: (i) there is no other favorable criminal record, and there

Considering the fact that the punishment was set for the accused.

In addition to the above sentencing conditions, even if comprehensive consideration of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the lower court as it is, and thus, it is not deemed unfair as the lower court’s punishment is too una

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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 grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.