The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the lectures of compliance driving, the community service hours of 40 hours, and the hours of 120 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Although there are many kinds of criminal records, such as driving of drinking and refusing to measure drinking, the driving of drinking again, despite the fact that the Defendant had a high level of alcohol level at the time of driving of the instant drinking, and that the Defendant had a high level of alcohol level of 0.257% is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to confession of and reflects on the facts constituting the offense; (b) disposed of the vehicle that was operated at the time of the instant crime; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for the commission of the offense; and (d) before and after the commission of the offense, the lower court’s punishment

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act in the application of the law of the court below is obvious that the “Article 148-2(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act” is a clerical error in the “Article 148-2(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act.” Thus, the prosecutor’s appeal is ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.