2. Determination

A. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation on sentencing in light of the fact that the sentencing exists in the appellate court’s ex post facto character, etc., if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first deliberation sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The Defendant was driving on July 14, 2016, and again driving under drinking again on August 12, 2016, which was 2000,0000. In light of the fact that the nature of the crime is not less than the degree of the crime, that alcohol concentration in blood transfusion is higher than 0.12% and 13%, and that the necessity of punishment for the Defendant is recognized.

However, the above circumstances were already launched during the oral argument of the lower court, and there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the Defendant would not re-confise such a mistake while putting in depth against the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, sex, environment, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unfeasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

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.