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 Defendant by taking into account the fact that the Defendant was punished several times by driving or driving without a license, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense due to drinking, but the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment by taking into account the fact that he/she committed a mistake, such as disposing of driving vehicles, and the circumstances of the crime.

In addition to the above sentencing conditions, even if comprehensive consideration of all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in special circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Thus, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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.