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. (See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed during the period of probation; the record of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol even before the crime of this case was committed; the statutory penalty for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures) is “the imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than three years or a fine not less than 5 million won but not more than 10 million won”; and the lower court appears to be somewhat unobcing the sentence corresponding to the lower limit of the applicable sentence after choosing imprisonment, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentence exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion, considering the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case by driving a motor bicycle with less danger compared to a motor vehicle, and that it recognized and

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.