The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B, as to the drinking driving case of Defendant A, made a specific and active statement to an investigation agency, thereby omitting the investigation agency’s error.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the fact that Defendant B was also an offender and the offense of Defendant A was also an offender, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to Defendant A (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order 120 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of Defendant B’s crime and the charge of Defendant A, premised on the following, on the grounds of the detailed circumstances stated in the items of “2. Determination” in the part of the judgment of not guilty, on the ground that “the fact presented by the prosecutor and the evidence alone are insufficient to evaluate that it would be difficult or impossible to detect or arrest the criminal due to Defendant B’s statements to the extent that the investigative agency would make it difficult or impossible to find or arrest the criminal.”

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Whether sentencing is unfair (as to Defendant A), it is recognized that the Defendant was punished three times by a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and that the alcohol concentration among the blood transfusion at the time of the instant case is relatively high than 0.138%.

However, it is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, that the distance driven by the defendant at the time of this case is relatively short of about 50 meters, and that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine.

(2).