2. In light of the judgment, the crime of this case was committed under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05%, and there is no extenuating circumstance such as that there is a high possibility of criticism in that the defendant's driving of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% shocked the damaged vehicle and inflicted injury on the victims. However, it is hard to say that the defendant again made a confession of the crime of this case and made a statement that his mistake is divided in depth, and that he does not repeat the crime of this case. The blood alcohol level level is relatively low, and the degree of injury of the victims is not much low, the vehicle of this case is covered by the automobile comprehensive insurance, and the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant. The defendant did not want the punishment of the defendant due to the violation of the Farmland Act around 2005, the defendant did not have any previous conviction except for the previous conviction due to the assault or assault on around 2008, and there is no other reason that the court below found the defendant's age, character and behavior, circumstances, motive and form of the crime of this case, etc.

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.