The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (six million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). From this point of view, the lower court: (a) took account of the following: (b) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances such as the reason for sentencing (i) and the reason for sentencing (i.e., the crime liability is not easy in that the Defendant is driving in a deceptive state that considerably strengtheneds the control standard and statutory punishment after the implementation of the current Road Traffic Act, which considerably strengthened the license standards after the implementation of the Road Traffic Act; (c) and favorable circumstances (i.e., the primary life of the society where the Defendant is not subject to punishment; (d) the mother who recently made a final judgment after the parents’ divorce without properly grasping the Defendant’s tendency; and (e) the mother who has recently made a final judgment falls under the tree of the Defendant, and (e) took account of the fact that the Defendant complained against the Defendant’s future danger and injury; and (e) the Defendant’s age, family relationship, and economic circumstances, etc., the lower court’s decision to reduce the Defendant’s selective punishment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unfasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below is applicable ex officio.