A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, probation, and community service order) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant’s above sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s previous criminal records are the same as the Defendant; (b) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is considerably high at the time of the instant case; (c) the Defendant has no record of being punished exceeding a fine due to drunk driving; (d) the Defendant has no record of being injured by the victim; and (c) the victim has not been injured; and (d) the Defendant has been paid damages of KRW 5.3 million through the insurance to which the Defendant was enrolled; and (e) there is no other circumstance to be newly considered in the trial; and (e) there is no other circumstance that may be newly considered in the trial of the lower court’s sentencing, such as the motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by being too heavy or unhued.

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