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 single fine due to the same kind of drinking driving is an unfavorable circumstance.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of and reflect against the crime; (b) the period prior to the above drunk driving is 2010 and there is a considerable interval between the instant case and the Defendant; and (c) other various sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, details of the crime; (b) blood alcohol concentration; (c) driving distance; and (d) circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of discretion, even if

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.