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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant was punished once by a fine due to a drunk driving, and that blood alcohol concentration is high is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the offense; (b) the period of time prior to the above drunk driving is 2008 and there exists no record of criminal punishment since 2010; and (c) other various sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, family relation, occupation, character and conduct, the details of the offense; (b) circumstances after the offense; and (c) the driving distance, etc., the lower court’s punishment is difficult to be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the scope of discretion, even if the Prosecutor considers the circumstances that the grounds for

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