2. The judgment is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was punished several times due to drinking or unlicensed driving (two times a fine, and two times a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor), and that the Defendant was under the control of the police officer while driving the instant drinking and unlicensed driving, and committed the instant crime as if he/she was his/her own criminal punishment, and that it is not good to commit the instant crime. However, it is deemed that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his/her mistake; the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment after November 2009; the distance of drinking and unlicensed driving did not exceed 50 meters; and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and conditions before and after the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.