2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances: (a) although the Defendant had been already punished by imprisonment, a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and a fine for the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes without being able to do so for more than two years and two months since the completion of the execution of the sentence; (c) the Defendant was committed without being able to do so; (d) the Defendant was aware of his mistake; (c) the Defendant is in depth and has to support both his mother and two children; (d) the Defendant was deemed to have committed each of the instant crimes by drinking, and (e) is deemed to have committed each of the instant crimes by drinking, and (e) the Defendant would not drink alcohol again after the release and receive mental therapy; and (e) other circumstances, including the motive leading up to each of the instant crimes; (e) the circumstances before and after the commission of each of the instant crimes; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, occupation, and family relationship, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the Defendant sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

[However, since it is clear that the "E Zone Zone" in Part 5 of the judgment of the court below is a wrong entry in the "E Zone in Seongbuk-gu Seoul L," it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.