2. As to the crime of this case, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant driving a vehicle while drinking alcohol without a license, and the crime of this case is not less complicated than that of the police officer's request for measurement of drinking.

Furthermore, considering the fact that the defendant tried to engage in a crime without disclosing his/her personal information in the course of investigation, the previous history of criminal punishment due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to drinking driving, refusal of measurement of drinking, and non-licensed driving has been several times, there may be room to view that more severe punishment is necessary for the defendant.

However, on the other hand, the defendant was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act due to a non-exclusive license on June 10, 2005, and there is no other criminal history other than that sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act due to a non-exclusive license on March 27, 2009. The court below and the court of the trial recognized the crime of this case in depth, and in consideration of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and circumstance of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, etc., the defendant's punishment against the defendant cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. 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.

(However, 6 pages 3 of the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to "the heavier punishment" and "the heavier punishment".