2. The judgment of the defendant committed a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act of the same kind, even though he/she had the history of punishment three times, repeats the driving of drinking at the time of the instant case, and thus, the defendant should be punished strictly because of a very high drinking level at the time of the instant case, and the defendant committed a considerable defect in the nature of the crime, such as interfering with legitimate execution of official duties by cutting the chest of the police officer controlling drinking, etc.

However, there is a relatively short distance of driving, the defendant has been punished for a suspended sentence of two years on October 21, 1996 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in addition to the above drunk driving, but there is a history of punishment for a suspended sentence of two years on October 21, 1996, such as special amnesty reinstatement, and other criminal records such as gambling, and there is no criminal records subject to punishment exceeding the fine.

In addition, taking account of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age, career, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too uneasible.

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.