2. The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the determination knife or the refusal to take a drinking test is ultimately a crime that makes it difficult to detect drinking driving and thus makes it difficult to strictly punish the crime. Although the Defendant had been punished by imprisonment or a fine on several occasions due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated offense, even though he had the record of being sentenced to imprisonment or a fine on several occasions due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On the other hand, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the risk of drinking driving under the influence of alcohol does not occur due to the reality of traffic accidents; (b) the Defendant did not repeat a crime by reflecting the depth of the error; (c) there are family members to support the Defendant; and (d) there are other circumstances to consider the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for committing the crime; and (e) the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment appears to be within the reasonable and appropriate scope; and (d) it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is not accepted.

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.