2. Unless the first instance court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or the first instance court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have been inappropriate in full view of the newly discovered materials in the appellate court’s appellate court’s determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s determination of sentencing, unless there exist circumstances such as deeming that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s sentencing was too unfilled and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of the following: (a) there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data; (b) the Defendant had the history of being punished once in 2005 for a crime of the same kind; (c) the blood alcohol concentration is 0.209%; and (d) the reason for sentencing revealed during the oral proceedings of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant attempted to flee at the control site but immediately stopped in accordance with the police order, etc.; and (c) other matters, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, details and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

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 on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.