2. The judgment is based on the records that the defendant has been punished several times due to the same kind of alcohol driving or unlicensed driving, and in particular, the fact that the defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism during the suspended execution period due to the same kind of crime is recognized as disadvantageous circumstances to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the facts constituting the instant crime, thereby contravening his mistake; (b) the occurrence of traffic accident was not caused by the instant crime; (c) the Defendant was detained for approximately three months in the lower court and appears to have sufficiently impaired the seriousness of punishment due to the repetition of driving under influence and driving without license; and (d) the Defendant supports his most children; and (c) other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, occupation, motive and background of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, family relationship, and criminal record relation, etc., the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be unreasonable because it is unreasonable, as it is not recognized that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable and excessive

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed without pleading pursuant to Article 364 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is obvious that the prosecutor's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.