The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (3 million won in penalty) declared by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. The fact that the Defendant had been punished three times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and had five times the same criminal records as the Defendant again committed the instant crime is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s perception of committing a crime is against the mistake while committing a crime; (b) there is no previous conviction exceeding the fine against the Defendant; (c) the Defendant appears to have been well aware of for a considerable period after driving without a license in 2008 to the instant crime; (d) the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving the instant drinking was not relatively higher than 0.064%; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, occupation, occupation, and circumstances after committing a crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That in the application of the law of the court below, the omission of “1. Selection of a fine: Selection of a fine: Selection of a fine: It is obvious that it is a clerical error, and it is corrected ex officio).