2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). B.

The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant, including a suspended sentence, has several times of punishment for drunk driving, significantly high drinking volume, the victim was a majority, and the fact that the Road Traffic Act-related compliance consciousness seems to be significantly lacking, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the Defendant’s crime and agreed with the victims, etc.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and there is no other reason for sentencing revealed in the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below’s punishment is too unfeasible and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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.