2. The case is that the defendant drives a motor vehicle without a driver's license while under the influence of alcohol at the height of 0.187% again during the suspension of execution due to a crime such as a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

In light of the fact that blood alcohol concentration is considerably high, that the defendant received goods of a dial store due to the operation of the state of the above state of the state of the state of the implementation, and that the defendant has more records of fines for the same kind of crime than the above suspended execution on two occasions, there is a need for strict punishment against the defendant.

On the other hand, however, there are circumstances to consider the defendant as follows.

The defendant seems to have driven a vehicle upon the request of the defendant to move the vehicle due to parking problems, and the distance of the vehicle is about five meters, and there are some circumstances to consider the reason for the crime.

The defendant has committed a crime with the aim of committing a crime, has a depthed, and has hardened that he does not commit such a crime again.

The family members of the defendant and his supporters also want to keep the defendant's prior wife in mind for the purpose of making efforts to correct the defendant.

The defendant has the old and two children who should support the defendant, and the custody of the most defendant seems to involve excessive difficulty for the above family members.

There is no history of punishment exceeding a fine for the defendant, except for the previous convictions of the suspension of execution.

In addition to all the above circumstances, the sentencing conditions of the lower court, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing a crime, circumstances after committing a crime, etc., do not seem to be unfair by deviating from the lower court’s limit of discretion.

Therefore, prosecutor's sentencing and warning cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.