2. The crime of this case is that the defendant drives a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.05%. The current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition provision on drinking more than twice in order to prevent driving of a vehicle under the influence of alcohol that threatens the safety of traffic on the road and to realize awareness about it, shall be punished more strictly. The defendant has the record of being punished three times for driving under the influence of alcohol (two times a punishment punishment, one time a suspended sentence), and in particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspended execution period due to driving under the influence of alcohol, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, his family relation, criminal records, sexual intercourse, environment, means and method of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions of this case should be too unfair, considering all of the sentencing conditions in the oral proceedings of this case such as the defendant's age, family relation, sexual intercourse, environment, method and method of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., where the defendant is detained, and the living of his family members would be very difficult if the defendant is detained. The crime of this case is the concurrent crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a crime of this case) of which judgment has become final and conclusive.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable.