2. Considering the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of drinking or unlicensed driving, and even before the commission of the instant crime on August 15, 2011, the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes despite having been punished for the same drinking or unlicensed driving, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant was detained in the instant case for about 45 days, and that he would not repeat the same mistake again while living in prison for about 45 days, the fact that there is no particular criminal power in recent years, that he was a physically disabled person in Grade II, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s occupation, career, personality and behavior, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.