2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness exists in the area unique to the first deliberation regarding sentencing, and the fact that the sentencing existed after the appellate court’s ex post facto character, etc., if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, 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 instant crime was committed by the Defendant in a severe state of alcohol concentration of 0.159% in blood, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of the Defendant; the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on April 18, 2016 as the same crime; and the Defendant again committed the instant crime on October 11, 2016, which is about six months, and the need to punish the Defendant.

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 following facts: (a) the Defendant did not have any history exceeding the fine; and (b) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; and (c) various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment 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.