The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 240 hours of community service activities) is too unfied and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times due to the crime of drunk driving in the past, and around 2014, the Defendant again committed the instant crime of the same kind as the instant crime of the same crime of the same crime of the same crime of the suspension of execution. The instant crime of refusing to take a alcohol measurement of the instant case appears to be somewhat uneasible to the Defendant’s punishment of the lower court, which committed the instant crime of the refusal to take a alcohol measurement, rather than the crime of simple drunk driving.

However, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the first instance court, there are no special circumstances showing the degree of ex post change in sentencing, the Defendant’s misunderstanding and reflects his/her wrongness, and there seems to be room for preventing the risk of recidivism of the Defendant through social service activities, etc., comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.; (b) ultimately, it is difficult to conclude that the lower court’s punishment, which grants the Defendant an opportunity to correct the crime within society, goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, is unreasonable.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal 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.