2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances: the Defendant’s act of this case was committed without a license to drive the Oral Ba, which was not covered by mandatory insurance, in the state of drinking, with a high possibility of criticism; the Defendant’s compliance consciousness seems to be very weak; and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was high at the time, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the distance from driving at the time is short; (c) the Defendant appears to have not good health conditions due to an accident resulting from drinking driving in this case; and (d) other circumstances likely to take into account the Defendant’s living environment, etc., which are favorable to the Defendant; and (d) comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

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.