2. On August 11, 2016, when considering the fact that the Defendant was subject to four times of punishment due to drinking, he/she was driving under the influence of drinking in the state of drinking 0.150% of alcohol concentration in blood on August 11, 2016, and that he/she was driving under the influence of drinking on August 16, 2016, five days after he/she was unable to do so, the Defendant needs to be subject to corresponding punishment.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unfeasible and unreasonable, in so doing, taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant was committed while committing the crime; (b) disposed of the vehicles used for the crime; (c) each of the instant crimes did not lead to traffic accidents; and (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal record in addition to the fine;

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That the application of the law of the court below to the effect that the omission of “1. Selection of punishment: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor” in the application of the law of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error, and it is corrected ex officio by adding it).