1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time, the Defendant had a weak mental and physical state of drinking.

B. On the other hand, the prosecutor appealeding that the defendant's imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor appealeding that it is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the records on the determination of mental and physical disability, the defendant is found to have served alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but it is difficult to view the above facts alone that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental and physical disorder beyond being drunk, and there is no other data to recognize the same. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. The Defendant appears to recognize and reflect a criminal act on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

On the other hand, the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.202% under the influence of alcohol level.

From 2010 to 2015, the Defendant was punished for a total of four times due to drinking driving, and was re-driving during the period of repeated crime due to drinking driving.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view that it is too heavy or somewhat

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are not accepted.

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

However, “the application of the statute” of the lower judgment refers to “the last time” 1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation.