2. The crime of this case is that the defendant driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.134% with a blood alcohol concentration, resulting in a traffic hazard in light of the level of drinking alcohol, and the defendant had three times (one time in actual sentence, two times in fine), three times as a drunk driving, and two times as a result of refusal to measure drinking (one time in actual sentence, and one time in fine) as well as two times as a result of his refusal to measure drinking, and in particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being able to commit it during the period of repeated offense for the same kind of crime, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is in profoundly against the depth, that the defendant would not drive a motor vehicle again after the motor vehicle has been scrapped, and that the defendant caused a traffic accident at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol of this case. However, this cannot be viewed as an accident caused by the driving under the influence of alcohol of this case, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it is not recognized that the punishment imposed 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.