2. If 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, the appellate court shall respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). From such perspective, it is recognized that: (a) the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle in a drunken state, brought about a serious consequence of the death of the victim by escaping while the Defendant was driving the motor vehicle, and that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level is considerably high.

However, although the defendant had been sentenced twice to a fine, there is no same criminal history as this case, and the victim's bereaved family members were paid insurance proceeds of KRW 103,92,120 to the victim's bereaved family members. The defendant paid KRW 20,000 to the victim's bereaved family members and only agreed that the above bereaved family members do not want the defendant's punishment. The defendant was detained for not less than six months at the court below, and the defendant seems to have seriously divided his/her mistake. There is no special change in circumstances that can change the sentence after the court below was sentenced, and there is no other change in circumstances that the court below's punishment after the court below was sentenced, and there is no other reason to change the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the court below's punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.