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 the following factors: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the developments and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too unhued.

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.

However, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the term "the pertinent legal provision on the crime of 1.0" in the application of the law of the court below shall be corrected to "the point of a drunk driving under Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act", "the point of a drunk driving under Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018)."

.