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 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 Defendant was punished by a fine on the same kind of crime (two times a drinking driving and one time a licenseless driving). Furthermore, even when the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a different type of crime (violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, the Defendant committed the instant crime without labor during the suspended sentence period. However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime. However, the Defendant was able to repent of his mistake, the blood alcohol concentration is not high, and there is no history of criminal punishment heavier than a fine for the same kind of crime.

The court below sentenced the above punishment against the defendant in consideration of the above favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the defendant.

In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial of the party are considered, there is no meaningful change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relation and social bond, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and is thus unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.