2. The crime of this case is that the defendant driving a vehicle while under influence of 0.116% alcohol concentration in blood causes danger to traffic, and the crime of this case is committed again despite the fact that there are many kinds of penalties, such as the crime's quality, one time suspension of execution of the same crime, and three times of fines, etc. The current Road Traffic Act stipulates that the person who violates the prohibition clause of drinking twice or more is more severe punishment when driving again, as in this case, for the purpose of preventing the driving of drinking which threatens traffic safety and ensuring the awareness of it, the current Road Traffic Act provides that the person who has violated the prohibition clause of drinking shall be punished more strictly.

However, in full view of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, including the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant did not repeat the crime by disposing of his own vehicle, the distance of operation is about 10 meters, and no additional traffic accident has occurred due to the crime of this case, etc., and other various sentencing conditions in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, family environment, home environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

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.