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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, in particular, that the Defendant had been drinking and driving without a license during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant’s mistake, such as disposal of vehicles, etc., is recognized and contradictory to the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive for the crime, blood alcohol concentration, driving distance, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the instant case, and there are no special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too 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 as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.