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 in relation to the determination of sentencing, 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 change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment. As such, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the circumstances and circumstances of the driving of alcohol, the degree of alcohol concentration in the blood, the distance of driving of alcohol, and the fact that there was no criminal record other than the punishment imposed once due to the driving of alcohol, and all the conditions of the arguments and the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and environment, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.