2. The judgment of the defendant is an unfavorable condition to the defendant that he/she has been subject to punishment twice due to drinking driving, even though he/she had a history of punishment.

However, considering the following as a whole: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects; (b) there was no history of punishment for the Defendant in excess of a fine; and (c) the previous crime of driving under the influence of alcohol was committed in 201; and (d) other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, blood alcohol level; (b) driving distance; and (c) circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the factors of sentencing specified in the oral proceedings; and (d) there was no special change of circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court

Therefore, the prosecutor's above 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.