2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court.

In addition, in full view of all the conditions of the pleadings and the records of the instant case, including the details and contents of the instant crime, motive, means and consequence of the crime, detection, drinking volume (0.067%), the criminal records of the Defendant’s like crime, distance between time and the previous drinking record, circumstances after the instant crime, and other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant case’s arguments and records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation, family relationship, economic situation, health condition, etc., the sentencing of the lower court which sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 12 million is too unfeasible and it is not recognized that the Defendant

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal cannot be accepted, and the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.