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 is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the circumstances and circumstances of the driving of drinking, the circumstance and the following circumstances of the driving of drinking, the degree of alcohol concentration in the blood alcohol, the distance of driving of drinking, and the fact that there was no criminal record other than once a fine due to driving of drinking, 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 was too unscheduled and exceeded the reasonable scope

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.