2. Determination Doctrine, the defendant has the same punishment power, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is very high at the time and the distance of driving is not short, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing his mistake, the risk of drunk driving has not been realized, and the fact that some of the defendant's living environment can be considered in the defendant's living environment, etc., the court below's punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable because it is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.

(However, the judgment of the court below in the second page 12 is clear that "the selection of a fine" is "the selection of a fine", "Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act" is "Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act", and therefore, it is obvious that the "Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in the Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.