The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, who had been already punished four times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the act of driving under the influence of alcohol, was negligent in violating the signal while driving under the influence of 0.255% of the blood alcohol level; (b) and (c) the risk of repeating the crime is not less than that of the crime and there is a social consensus on the necessity of severe punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol; and (d) the Defendant’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service, 160 hours of course, 40 hours of compliance driving course) is too unfford and unreasonable.

2. The judgment was examined, and the court below sentenced the above sentence to the defendant on the grounds of sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal are deemed to have been sufficiently considered while determining the punishment in the court below. The defendant was committed in full, and the defendant was punished four times due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to drinking driving, and there was no past record of punishment exceeding the fine in full, even though all the facts were punished four years prior to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act. The victims' degree of injury is relatively minor and they agreed with the victims. In addition, considering all the sentencing factors in this case, such as age, character, environment, circumstances, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below is too uncompared and thus, it cannot be recognized that the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.