2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015. Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) although the Defendant was punished for drunk driving in 2014; (b) was found to have a high drinking level at the time of enforcement; (c) the Defendant committed a second offense in approximately five years; (d) the Defendant was agreed with the victim of the crime of causing property damage; and (e) the Defendant was willing to commit a second offense against himself/herself; and (e) there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, including the crime, do not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by being too unfford and so doing.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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