The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of one year, two years suspended execution, and forty hours during the compliance driving course) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances (such as the high level of drinking water in the instant case and the record of punishment for drinking driving three times) as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued, even if the lower court’s sentencing conditions were considered in light of all of the conditions of sentencing

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.