2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There are unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the past record of being punished for driving alcohol, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was considerably high.

However, considering the above circumstances, the lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment and there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In full view of all the sentencing factors in the process of the instant case including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of each of the instant offenses, means and method, circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, or is too unjustifiable, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair, in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflect, and that the Defendant’s drinking history was 13 years prior to the present time.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.