2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and the reasons for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor seem to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.

Although the Defendant had been convicted of drinking twice, this is a considerable interval between the instant crime and that of 2007 and 2008, and there is no record that the Defendant was punished as above, and there was no record of punishment for the same and different crimes until the instant crime was committed.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the developments and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too unhued and so it cannot be said that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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

(However) In accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act is amended ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act is amended.