2. The judgment of the Defendant, even though he had a history of criminal punishment for a drunk driving in the past, re-driving the instant vehicle, and the blood alcohol level was relatively high, and the Defendant’s act of escaping from the police as it is is, is disadvantageous to the point that the nature of the crime is bad.

On the other hand, the defendant has relatively no history of criminal punishment, and there is no possibility of punishment exceeding a fine, and even if he/she disposes of the vehicle, etc., he/she does not repeat the crime, such as disposing of the vehicle, etc., and the degree of damage of this case does not seem to be very serious. In light of the special circumstances to change the sentencing ex post facto, it is not revealed that the special circumstances to the extent of changing the sentencing are not revealed, and in full view of the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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