2. At the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, there is a need to strictly punish the defendant in light of the following facts: (a) the defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol content up to 0.182%; (b) the defendant was punished four times for the same crime; and (c) the defendant was in a state of probation for the same kind of crime despite being in existence of a period of probation for the same crime; and (d) the defendant was seeking to deny the crime and avoid liability until the court below held that there is no good condition after the crime; (b) on the other hand, the defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again; and (c) the defendant was actively driving under the influence of alcohol and without

In full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing in the instant case, it is deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not reasonable, on the ground that the Defendant’s driving distance in the state of drinking and non-license without drinking, does not change. The Defendant is the most responsible for supporting his wife, mother and two children, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family relationship, etc.

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