The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of lecture order for compliance driving, 240 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

It does not seem that it does not appear.

3. In conclusion, 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.