2. The crime of this case is a case where the defendant, who has been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice, has been engaged in driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was very high to 0.239% at the time of detection, and the drinking driving is a crime that may cause serious danger to the life and property of another person who is not only himself/herself, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant acknowledges the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, there was a record of criminal punishment three times for the same crime, but it was not less than five years prior to the crime of this case, and that the vehicle is scrapped after the crime of this case, and that it is hard to say that it will not drive under the influence of alcohol again is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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