2. The fact that the defendant had been punished twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, but he again committed the crime of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake when committing an offense was committed; (b) the Defendant did not immediately drive the drinking immediately while drinking; (c) was discovered while driving the drinking while under the condition that the drinking was less than the previous drinking after drinking; (d) there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances leading up to the instant crime of drinking; (b) the Defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the instant crime was not higher than 0.052%; (c) the Defendant did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine; and (d) all the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, occupation, and conditions after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and thus is not deemed unfair.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the omission of “1. Selection of sentence: Imprisonment without prison labor” between “ordinary concurrence” and “reduction of volume” in the application of the law of the original judgment is obvious that it is a clerical error, and it is corrected ex officio.