A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

2. The judgment is disadvantageous to the Defendant’s past record of criminal punishment due to drunk driving.

However, it is favorable for the defendant to recognize and reflect the crime of this case, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving.

Considering these circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the sentence of the court below is considered unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is justified, and the following decision is rendered again.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018); Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of driving without a license) of the option of punishment;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act shall be determined as per Disposition in consideration of the various circumstances examined earlier;