2. Although the judgment defendant had a record of being punished as a drunk driving, the fact that the defendant drives a drunk driving is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects; (b) there was no history of punishment exceeding a fine; and (c) drinking driving has no history of punishment other than the punishment of a fine in 2007; and (d) other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (b) background of the offense; (c) blood alcohol level; (d) driving distance; and (e) circumstances after the offense, etc., the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all of the factors of sentencing specified in the present pleadings; and (e) there was no special change of circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court,

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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