2. As to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant repeated again even though he had the history of punishment for the crime of drinking alcohol driving, and the Defendant, in particular, while being tried due to the crime of drinking alcohol driving, was driving again while driving the vehicle. The motive and circumstances of the crime are not good, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving the vehicle is considerably high, and the risk of the instant crime is extremely high in light of the regulatory background.

On the other hand, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant does not repeat again while he reflects his mistake, that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, that there is no realizing the risk of driving of drinking in this case, and that there are some circumstances that can be considered in the living environment of the defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, gender and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing factors in the process of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable.

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 on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 53, Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act on the ground that it is obvious that "Article 53, Article 55 (1) 3, and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in Article 53, Article 55 (1) 3 and 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that Article 25 (1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure is correct as above).