2. The judgment that the defendant had a record of being punished for drunk driving, but again prevents the crime of drinking driving in this case, and furthermore, the defendant's refusal to comply with the drinking test by the control police officer is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant did not repeat the crime while against his mistake, and that the defendant caused the crime of this case in order to drive a short distance to park even if he committed a substitute driver at the time, is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as being too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act is apparent that "Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act, the above dismissal ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall be corrected.