2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, along with the fact that there are several records of punishment for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, and circumstances before and after the crime.

The judgment below

There is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that can be considered newly after a sentence was rendered, and comprehensively taking account of the records and various sentencing conditions in the instant case including the circumstances considered by the lower court, it does not seem that the lower court’s sentence was too unfasible and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The 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.

[However, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, "(s)" shall be added at the end of the column of the concurrent criminal among the application of the judgment of the court below.