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 argument and the records of the instant case, including the details and contents of the instant crime, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, drinking volume (0.128%) of the Defendant’s like crime (one time, a fine of one million won), circumstances after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age, character, character, occupation, family relationship, economic circumstances, health conditions, etc., the sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to a fine of ten million won, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, is not recognized.

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.