2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been determined by fully considering the various circumstances favorable to the Defendant (the period of suspension of execution, the history of a fine due to drinking alcohol, the intention of the main treatment, and the previous previous conviction prior to the suspension of execution). However, even considering all the grounds alleged by the prosecutor, the sentencing of the lower court is too unfasible, and thus, it is difficult to find any special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the record of the crime in this case, it is not deemed that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.