2. The judgment that the defendant again committed the crime of interference with the business of this case during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime, and that he/she again conducted drinking driving even though he/she had been punished several times due to drinking driving, is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, in the crime of interference with business, the degree of type used by the defendant is not limited, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drunk driving was not high to 0.067%.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and various sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and pleadings, 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.