The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service work 80 hours, and the participation in compliance driving 40 hours) is deemed to be too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. The Defendant again committed the instant drinking crime even though he/she had the history of punishment for driving under drinking (three times a punishment punishment, and one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment).

The drinking volume at the time of crime is 0.208% high.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant admitted the facts charged; (b) the Defendant re-influenced the crime of drinking on February 26, 2017, during the trial of the appellate court of this case, and was detained on the separate charges; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment on May 18, 2017 from the first instance court to the first instance court, and currently under confinement (the instant case is pending in the appellate court after filing an appeal by the prosecutor and the Defendant); and (d) other conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime; and (e) circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed unfair as it is deemed unfair

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is correct ex officio as adding it is obvious that the omission of “1. Selection of punishment: Imprisonment” is a clerical error, since it is obvious that it is a clerical error.