2. The crime of this case was committed on the part of the defendant who was punished for driving under influence of alcohol, and that the responsibility for the crime was not less than that of driving under influence of alcohol once a month, and that the blood alcohol concentration was 0.164%, and that the defendant was a state of drinking under significant influence of alcohol, etc., are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant is divided into one's mistake and reflects the defendant, the risk of recidivism by selling the vehicle after the crime of this case is not significant, the defendant has no particular criminal power except punishment for the same kind of crime, the defendant faithfully lives in his workplace, and the family and social solidarity is also maintained.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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