2. Determination: (a) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level is considerable to 0.203%; (b) the danger of drunk driving occurs; and (c) the Defendant was punished once by a fine even before the instant case, which was unfavorable to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes; (c) the driving distance is limited to 0.5m; (d) the degree of injury suffered by the victim is limited to 0.5m; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim; (d) there is no extenuating circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the decision of the lower court was rendered; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the relevant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion as above is not acceptable since the sentence is too unfilled.

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.

(However, since it is apparent that the part of the lower judgment’s application of the law was omitted with regard to the selection of punishment, the ex officio correction is made by adding two of “the choice of punishment” and “each imprisonment choice” to “the relevant legal provision on the criminal facts of 1.” pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.