2. The decision of the court below should consider the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant repeated the crime during the suspension period of execution of the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to drinking and unlicensed driving, the fact that only the third crime of non-licensed driving was committed in favor of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant did not cause personal and material damage, such as traffic accidents, disposal of the vehicle, the fact that there was no criminal history other than the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that there was a mistake other than the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that the defendant misleads and repents it. Finally, the court below

In addition to these circumstances, when comprehensively considering various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, including Defendant’s age, sex, and environment, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in special circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Therefore, it is difficult to view the lower court’s sentence as being too uneasible and unfair

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 on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.