2. In light of the fact that the Defendant is driving with a significant blood alcohol concentration and causing a traffic accident, the victim and criminal agreement has not been reached, and the risk of causing serious harm to the life, body, and property of a third party as well as the driver of a drunk driving, etc., it is highly necessary to prevent recidivism through strict punishment.

Meanwhile, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Considering that there is no special change in circumstances where the first instance court’s sentencing is to be changed when it comes to the first instance court’s sentencing, the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions such as the character and conduct of the Defendant, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing 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.