2. While the Defendant was punished twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) and one time as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking refusal to take a measurement of drinking), the Defendant was making another driving of drinking at once. Ultimately, as a result, causing a traffic accident and causing a traffic accident, resulting in a victim of more than 10 weeks of heavy drinking, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime was higher than 0.124%, and the Defendant was shocked by the central line to avoid the crackdown, and thus, there is a significant possibility of criticism against the Defendant.

However, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant received six weeks' injury from the accident in the instant case and received a felling surgery, the victim does not want the punishment against the Defendant under an agreement with the Defendant, and the Defendant does not have any record of the suspended execution or heavier punishment.

In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court 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.