2. The instant crime is determined as follows: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 0.101% while driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; (b) when the Defendant was found to have been found to have been drunk by drinking or non-licenseed driving; (c) forged various documents, such as a statement report on the situation of the driver under the name of D and used it; (d) the nature of the relevant crime is not good in light of the background, method, and details of the crime; (c) the Defendant was punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) on October 8, 2013; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (d) on October 15, 2013; and (e) the Defendant was guilty of having committed the instant crime on November 12, 2014, as alleged by the Prosecutor.

However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. after the crime of this case, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence is too unfasible and it is too unfasible. The defendant's non-licenseed driving on February 2, 2007 that he voluntarily surrenders to the police. The defendant did not have any record of being punished for drinking or non-licenseing for driving on February 1, 2013, and there is no record of being punished by imprisonment, and there is no record of being punished by imprisonment. The defendant suffers from depression, and the defendant suffers from depression and is not healthy due to the attempted suicide after the crime of this case, etc., the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.