The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and 40 hours of probation and compliance driving) 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.

As to the instant case, there are unfavorable circumstances in sentencing, such as the health team, the Defendant’s driving without a license, which causes a traffic accident while driving a vehicle under drinking and without a license, the higher level of blood alcohol content of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment three times prior to the crime of drinking driving. However, it is difficult for the lower court to judge that there was a change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court as the circumstances already taken into account in the process of determining the sentence. The lower court determined that the Defendant has already led to the confession of the instant crime and again not to commit the crime of drinking driving; the distance of the Defendant’s driving does not vary; the Defendant’s driving distance did not change; the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime; and the sentencing grounds revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the background of the instant crime