The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment and an order to attend a law-abiding class for forty hours) is too uneased and unreasonable;

2. The Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished twice by a fine due to drinking driving.

Before committing the instant crime, the period when the Defendant was punished for drinking driving was relatively old around December 2009 and around August 2010, and the distance from driving in the state of drinking is about 100 meters.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is not accepted, since the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, as it is obvious that the “Road Traffic Act” in the column of application of the law of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the “former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018)”, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.