2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant has a history of having been punished several times by driving under drinking, and there are unfavorable circumstances such as causing a traffic accident while driving under the influence of drinking even at the time of the instant case.

However, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment heavier than a suspended sentence due to drinking driving, and the punishment for drinking driving within the last ten years is only once more, and the distance of driving without the high level of alcohol concentration in the blood of this case.

In the trial, new sentencing materials have not been submitted.

In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and trial process, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, is not deemed to have exceeded the bounds of discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, on the ground that it is apparent that the “Road Traffic Act” of 2-6 parallels of the original judgment is a clerical error in the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018).