On the other hand, the defendant appealed the guilty portion on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor did not separately appeal the dismissal part of the grounds for appeal. The dismissal part of the grounds for appeal based on the principle of indivisible appeal has already been judged in the trial along with the guilty part, but it has already been relieved from the object of attack and defense between the parties.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the remaining part of the judgment below excluding the dismissal of the grounds for appeal, and the judgment of the court below on the dismissal of the grounds for appeal shall not be separately determined by the judgment below.

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It appears that the health of the defendant is somewhat insufficient to determine, and the circumstances such as the last sentence in 2006 and the last sentence in 2006 have considerable time to commit each of the instant crimes.

However, drinking driving is a crime that may lead to the life of a person who is not only the defendant, but also the person in question, and the actual traffic accident occurred due to the crime of this case. The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again even though he had been punished several times, including imprisonment with prison labor due to drinking driving, and the interval between times for each of the crimes of this case is very short. In light of the fact that the risk of recidivism seems to be reasonable, it is shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, the process and motive leading to the crime of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime.