The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (five million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unhutiled and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant, who was punished five times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, committed the instant crime even though he had a number of criminal records of the same kind, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake when committing a crime was committed; (b) the Defendant did not immediately drive the drinking immediately while drinking; (c) the Defendant was discovered while driving the drinking to work at a night after drinking; and (d) there are circumstances to take into account the background of the crime as being discovered; (c) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the instant crime was not significantly high by 0.05%; and (d) other all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after committing the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act, which applies the law of the court below's decision, is obvious that the "Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act", and it is corrected ex officio. Since it is obvious that the omission of "the selection of a fine of 1. punishment" is a clerical error, it is corrected ex officio as it is corrected as it is corrected ex officio).