2. In 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 determining 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 sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment. As such, there is no special change in sentencing conditions compared to the circumstances leading up to and after the traffic accident while driving a drinking, the degree of alcohol concentration in each blood, driving distance, degree of damage caused by traffic accident, degree of damage caused by drinking, driving without a license, and the first instance court’s license was revoked, and the first instance court’s sentencing is deemed to have been punished by a fine for non-driving without a license between drinking and the second driving without a drinking, and the Defendant did not have any excessive personality and conduct in light of the following circumstances.

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.