The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment, and forty hours of compliance driving lectures) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, but the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle with a high alcohol level of 0.141% at the same time, and that many victims suffered injury, it is necessary to punish the Defendant corresponding thereto.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the injury suffered by the victims is relatively minor; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle is subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance; and (c) the Defendant has no criminal record other than the power that was punished once due to driving of drinking around 2009; and (d) other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and thus is not deemed unfair.

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. However, since it is obvious that the omission of “1. Selection of punishment: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor” in the application of the law of the original judgment is a clerical error, it is corrected ex officio to add it).