2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished several times due to drinking and unlicensed driving in the past, as well as repeated driving of the instant case during the period of probation due to drunk driving and unlicensed driving, etc., the Defendant’s criminal liability is not less appropriate. However, considering the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of and his depth against the instant crime, and that there is some reason to consider the motive and circumstance of the Defendant’s committing the instant crime; the distance of the Defendant’s driving is less than 700 meters; the Defendant did not cause the instant crime; the Defendant’s driving distance is less than 70 meters; the Defendant did not cause the accident; the lower court, considering all the aforementioned circumstances, imposed a fine in an amount equivalent to the maximum statutory penalty; the Defendant’s age, character, intelligence and environment; the motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable is unreasonable.

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.