2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and the reasons for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor seem to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.

In addition, in full view of all the factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal records, the circumstance and motive leading to the instant crime, and the situation before and after the instant crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, it cannot be said that the sentencing of the lower court is too uneasible, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant habitually committed a drunk driving in 2012, and there is no penalty history exceeding the fine, and the distance of the Defendant’s drunk driving is relatively short.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion 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.