2. In a case where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and where 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant was subject to four times punishment due to driving, and that the blood alcohol concentration in the instant blood is very high, the three times of driving under the influence of alcohol is more than ten years, and the three times of driving under the influence of alcohol is more than ten years, and there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine due to the same kind of crime, and it appears to be contrary to the crime. After the sentence of the lower court, the lower court’s punishment was too excessive, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the Defendant’s punishment disadvantageous to the Defendant, and there is no other reason to view that the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.