2. Despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to driving under drinking, he/she drives a motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle at the altitude of 0.161% of alcohol level during his/her re-blood, and this case has a large degree of criticism in that the Defendant caused an accident involving a parked vehicle and the fact of driving under drinking was discovered during his/her treatment, leading to a large number of accidents.

However, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the fact that the defendant was committed while committing the crime, the driving distance is about 10 meters, the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine, and the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, occupation, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. As such, 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 by the court below (Provided, That the application of the law of the court below to “1. Selection of punishment: Imprisonment without prison labor” is obvious that it is a clerical error, and it is corrected ex officio by adding it.)