2. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in spite of the fact that he had already been punished twice as the same kind of crime, and at the time when one year has not passed since he was punished as a drunk driving, and the driving of the instant drinking at the time when one year has not passed since he was punished as a drunk driving, and the drinking volume is high to 0.182%, the responsibility for such crime is not easy.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes in this case, the fact that the defendant has no record of the suspension of execution or higher, the fact that the defendant is deprived of his status when he is sentenced to a punishment heavier than the suspension of execution, etc., as well as various sentencing factors in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the crime, means and consequence of the crime in this case, the circumstance after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing is unreasonable, and therefore, it is not reasonable to deem the defendant'

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.