2. Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished as a crime of violating the Traffic Act on the Road in 2014, strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, in full view of the following facts: the Defendant’s mistake is divided in depth; the Defendant did not have been punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act other than the above one-time power; the Defendant did not have any record of being punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (e.g., the refusal of drinking), and the Defendant’s age, sex and family environment; the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the various sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, are deemed unfair because the Defendant’s punishment is too uneasible; thus, 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 on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.