2. The judgment of the Defendant is an unfavorable circumstance that: (a) while driving a large-scale vehicle, the Defendant destroyed a tunnel facility and escaped therefrom; and (b) the damage was not recovered ex post facto; and (c) the Defendant was punished by multiple traffic-related crimes of the same kind and kind and kind of traffic in the past.

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following: (a) the personal injury or the second accident did not occur due to each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant appears to repenting the wrongness; (c) the majority of the offenses were punished due to traffic-related crimes in the past; (d) the first instance court did not have been punished in excess of the fine; and (e) the order to attend a lecture and community service activities ordered by the Defendant were likely to prevent edification or recidivism; and (e) the first instance court’s sentencing does not change in the conditions of sentencing and does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

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.