2. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s high drinking value at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s act of forging and using a private document using his personal information to be exempted from punishment after his driving without a license is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, there is no record of punishment in addition to punishment for a fine of 150,000 won due to violence in 1984, and a fine of 2.5 million won due to driving under the influence of alcohol in 2011.

In addition, in full view of the facts that the court below determined the punishment against the defendant in light of the overall circumstances and there is no special change in the trial, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the court below's punishment is too uneasible and thus, it is not recognized that the prosecutor's above assertion is unfair.

3. In conclusion, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2 (2) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act applies to the application of the law of the court below as stated in the judgment below, since it is obvious that "the point of drinking: the point of drinking: the point of drinking: the error of the "Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act", it is correct in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure