2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to punishment once (the punishment on a five-time basis, the suspension of execution once) due to driving under drinking, the crime of refusing to measure drinking, etc., and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension of execution, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes and reflects the criminal facts, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is not relatively high to 0.066%, and the defendant disposes of the vehicle which he/she driven at the time of the instant case and does not drive again.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no special relationship or change of circumstances to be newly considered in the first instance court, such as the Defendant’s operation with luminous cancer on May 15, 2017; (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court; and (c) where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive for the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., even if the lower court’s sentence is somewhat minor, it cannot be deemed unfair to the extent that it should be reversed.

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.