The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had committed the same kind of crime four times, and had a relatively high level of alcohol content during his blood at the time, the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court’s sentence (amounting to five million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine several times due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed Driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed Driving).

In addition, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was considerably high by 0.140%.

Considering such factors, the nature of the crime is less than that of the crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, thereby contravening the depth of his mistake, and did not repeat the instant crime by disposing of his own vehicle.

At the time, there are some circumstances that can be taken into account the motive and circumstance of the defendant, such as the defendant's intention to park in the parking lot is deemed to have been under the influence of drinking, and the distance of the vehicle operation is not long.

In addition, the lower court conducted the instant case according to the citizen participation trial procedure, and determined the sentence against the Defendant according to the sentencing opinion presented by the jurors. Although the jury’s opinion on sentencing only has a recommended effect, it is also necessary to consider that the jury’s opinion should be respected so as to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of justice by reflecting the people’s common sense and experience in the trial.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and results of the crime, etc. are all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case.