2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to a five-time punishment (four-time punishment and one-time punishment) due to driving under drinking, etc., and the Defendant had a total of 10 times punishment for traffic-related crimes, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant in light of the fact that he repeatedly commits the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was not high to 0.089%, and the instant crime was less dangerous than driving a vehicle as the Defendant was driving a otobane.

It can be seen that the defendant will not repeat the crime in the future.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the fact that there is no special relationship or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial; (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment; and (c) the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court where the sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015); and (d) other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because

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.