2. The crime of this case is a case where the defendant, who has been punished two or more times due to drinking driving, has been engaged in driving under the influence of alcohol, and the nature of the crime is not good, and driving under the influence of alcohol may bring about a serious danger to the life and property of another person as well as his own. Thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine prior to the discovery, that the blood alcohol concentration level was relatively lower than 0.076% at the time of the detection, that the distance of drunk driving is relatively short of 500 meters, that the wife and minor children should be supported, and that it is hard to say that they will not repeat again, are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., as seen above, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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