2. The lower court determined that: (a) when determining the sentence against the Defendant, the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant, under unfavorable circumstances, had the criminal records of criminal punishment four times due to drunk driving; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months on April 2016 due to a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive on around November 2016; and (b) the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime was relatively high; (c) the Defendant recognized the instant crime under favorable circumstances; (d) the Defendant was not subject to a fine exceeding the same kind of crime; (d) the Defendant had no record of punishment; and (e) the criminal records subject to the punishment due to drunk driving of the instant case had been nine years prior to the date of the suspended sentence; (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime with his previous criminal records committed by committing a criminal offense; and (e.g.

As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and also seems to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.

In addition, there is no special change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

Therefore, the prosecutor does not accept the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion 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.