The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service, the 80 hours, the order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). All circumstances asserted by a prosecutor as an unfavorable element in sentencing in the trial at the trial of the lower court were revealed in the hearing of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances related to the matters subject to sentencing after the sentence of the lower court is made.

In addition, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the following factors: the sentencing conditions set forth in the court below and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.

There is no room to determine the person, and there is no room to change the situation, so the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit.