2. The lower court determined that the Defendant would not repeat the crime, recognizing the Defendant’s favorable circumstances (the Defendant would not repeat the crime).

It seems that the above punishment is imposed by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant has already been punished by a fine once due to drinking driving, and there is no other criminal history in addition to a fine imposed on one occasion due to drinking driving; (b) the Defendant repeats the same kind of crime even though he/she had already been punished by a fine due to drinking driving; (c) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant case is very high to 0.133%; and (d) the Defendant’s traffic accident caused by two vehicles parked while driving under the influence of alcohol by repeating two vehicles of others).

In light of the aforementioned various reasons for sentencing and the Defendant’s age, career, sex, environment, family relation, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and other circumstances that were known by the records, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that the lower court would change the sentence against the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing is appropriate and it has abused its discretionary power or exceeded its discretionary power.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.