2. According to the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times as a crime of drunk driving, again re-offending the crime of this case despite the previous conviction of suspended sentence, the blood alcohol concentration level is significant, and the occurrence of a traffic accident occurs while he did not purchase a mandatory insurance policy during drunk driving, it is reasonable to place the Defendant with severe punishment.

However, there is also a circumstance that can be considered for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant is all trying to commit the instant crime, the fact that the defendant did not drive immediately after drinking, but did not have a considerable time after drinking, and that the defendant had a conclusive criminal intent to commit the instant crime after driving at the P.M. time, and that it does not seem to have led to the instant crime, and that the defendant does not repeat the crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, there is no special change in circumstances that determine the sentencing conditions different from the original judgment and the punishment, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as being too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.