All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (one year of suspended sentence of one year, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service order 80 hours, 40 hours of lecture order for compliance driving), and the sentence against Defendant B (one year of suspended sentence of four months of imprisonment) against the lower court (one year of suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. The judgment of Defendant A had the history of punishing the Defendants for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving alcohol), and Defendant B had the history of punishing the Defendants for the crime of aiding and abetting, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendants; however, considering the Defendants’ confession of the instant crime, as a whole, the Defendants’ age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible and thus, it cannot be deemed unfair. Thus, the prosecutor’s improper assertion

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that the appeal by the prosecutor was omitted, it is the case where "the punishment stipulated for the crime of aiding and abetting the above investigation's signature or the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) among the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) during the 20th 20th 1st 5th 20 to 6th 1st 200."