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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence of the lower court by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the fact that he/she had the record of punishment of fines due to driving under drinking, although he/she had the record of punishment; (b) the Defendant recognizes and reflects the instant crime; (c) the Defendant has no record of being punished beyond the fine; (d) the amount of alcohol concentration in blood was higher than 0.039%; and (e) the driving distance was not higher than 2

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the records of the instant case and the reasons for sentencing as shown in the trial process, the lower court’s sentencing is too unhued and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.