2. The judgment of the defendant committed the crime of drinking in this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of drinking in this case without being aware of the criminal history of the same drinking driving, and driving of drinking is a crime that may cause great harm to an unspecified person, and its social risk is considerably high. The risk is realized by the defendant causing a collision with the victims two times during the crime of drinking in this case and causing injury to the victims. The defendant's blood alcohol concentration among the blood of this case was 0.199% higher at the time of the crime in this case, and the victim and the victim did not reach an agreement, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects its depth; (b) the victim’s injury is relatively excessive; (c) the Defendant subscribed to a comprehensive insurance; (d) the Defendant subscribed to imprisonment with prison labor; and (e) the Defendant ordered the Defendant to perform the strength of compliance driving force together with a suspended sentence; (b) the Defendant’s force of driving alcohol was around 199, which was around 20 years prior to the Defendant’s 20 years ago; and (c) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the background of the instant crime; (d) the circumstances following the instant crime; (e) the Defendant’s age; and (e) the Defendant’s age; and (e)

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