2. Determination of the crime of this case is a case in which the defendant, who has been punished twice or more due to drinking driving, once or more, once again drives drinking, and the quality of the crime is not weak, and the defendant has a record of criminal punishment five times (one time of suspended execution, four times of fines) due to the same crime, and driving of drinking is a crime that may cause serious danger to the life and property of another person, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake in depth, and, even though the Defendant arrived at a destination by proxy driving, the Defendant had to drive drinking because there was no parking space, and the distance of drinking driving is about five meters short, and the Defendant would not repeat such mistake again.

It is hard to say that it is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the court below’s punishment is too unfasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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