2. The judgment that the defendant had a history of punishment twice due to drinking driving, that the defendant's values are high in drinking, and that the means of the crime of destroying special property in this case is very dangerous is the circumstances disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s last drinking record was prior to about 10 years prior to the date of the instant crime, the distance from the Defendant’s driving of drinking is very short, the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim of the instant special property damage, the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake in its entirety and reflects it, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is rejected.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the ex officio correction of “Article 369 of the Criminal Act” to “Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act.”