The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of the law-abiding class curriculum) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In relation to the instant case, there are circumstances unfavorable to sentencing, such as health team, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime was high, and that the Defendant had the record of criminal punishment for the crime of drunk driving over three times even before, but it is difficult for the lower court to judge that there was any change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court as circumstances already considered in the process of determining the sentence. The Defendant is willing to confession the instant crime and not to commit the crime of drunk driving again, and the time when the Defendant drinking alcohol was committed is the day immediately before the day of the instant crime, and there is a circumstance that can be considered in the circumstances of the Defendant’s drunk driving, including the following day, there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, and considering the sentencing factors revealed in the process of the instant pleading, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, background of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too uneased.