2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months at the Ulsan District Court on November 2009 due to the same crime and for 2 years of suspended execution at the Ulsan District Court on November 20, 2009, and did not go to the instant crime again without being convicted of the past five times, and the amended Road Traffic Act on June 8, 201 stipulates that a person who was punished two times or more due to the drinking driving for the purpose of preventing the driving under the influence of alcohol and enhancing the awareness of the traffic safety and strictly punish the person who was punished for the purpose of driving under the influence of drinking again, and thus, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of various sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and speaks against the defendant, the occurrence of no human and material damage due to the drinking driving of this case does not occur, the family environment, such as supporting the fluence in South Korea, the defendant's age, occupation, and the background leading to the crime of this case, etc., even considering all the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor's appeal by the court below is not justified because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too un

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act for lack of reason.