The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant on the gist of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of a compliance driving lecture, 40 hours of a alcohol treatment lecture, and 40 hours of a community service order) is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the sentencing materials against the Defendant were not newly submitted in the first instance court, while the sentencing materials against the Defendant were not newly submitted in the first instance court. Rather, when the Defendant was in the first instance trial, 2.5 million won was deposited for the victim E and the details of the payment of insurance proceeds were additionally submitted for the Defendant.

In full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case’s sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhutiled.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.