The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended execution in the month of imprisonment for eight months and forty hours of lecture attendance order for compliance driving) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the defendant's judgment did not know even though he had the history of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol and caused the victims to drive again under the influence of alcohol, and that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was very high at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol, strict punishment against the defendant is required.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, agreed with the victims, and the motor vehicle operated by the defendant was covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

In addition, there is no particular criminal history in addition to the punishment of fine due to driving under drinking in 2007.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and deemed unfair, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

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