2. In light of the fact that the defendant had been punished several times due to traffic-related crimes (such as punishment, suspension of the execution of imprisonment, as well as punishment) and again committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the defendant had been punished several times, and that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was very high at the time of driving alcohol, strict punishment against the defendant is required.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects in depth; (b) the Defendant’s disposal of a vehicle driving at a hospital for the purpose of treatment of alcohol ozone; and (c) there is no particular criminal history after 201; and (d) other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the background of the instant crime; (b) circumstances after the instant crime; (c) the Defendant’s age; and (d) the Defendant’s age; and (c) the Defendant’s environment, etc., the Defendant’s punishment of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair

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.