The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, the community service order 80 hours, the order to attend a law enforcement lecture 40 hours) is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case, based on the judgment, is deemed to have driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol despite the fact that the defendant had been punished not less than twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the driving of alcohol, and is deemed to have driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. In light of the content of the crime, the criminal liability is grave, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was high at the time of the crime.

However, it is reasonable to respect the defendant's confession of the crime of this case and reflects the defendant's mistake in depth, the defendant's two times of a fine for drinking alcohol driving was sentenced to 2006 and 2016, and there is no record of punishment for other same kind of crime, the Korean Criminal Litigation Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has its own territory of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first trial, and the first deliberation sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are not equivalent to changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below was sentenced, and considering all the circumstances that constitute the conditions of the sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.