A. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant recognized his mistake from the police investigation stage to the trial court is against the law, that the degree of injury suffered by the victims is relatively minor, and that the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance is more favorable.

On the other hand, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and in particular, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on September 24, 2014 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving), and committed the crime of this case again on only one month after the period of the suspended sentence expires, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration in the blood of this case is relatively high.

In addition, the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime was committed, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee (hereinafter “the scope of recommended punishment”) / [the scope of recommended punishment] of the basic area (4 months to 10 months] (special mitigation (special mitigation) / (1) where minor injury occurred, (1) where the illegality in the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on the Roads where the sentencing guidelines is serious, and (2) of the Act on the Traffic of Roads where the sentencing guidelines are not set, and (3) offenses concurrent to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving driving without a license) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license). In full view of the following, the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set by the lower court is not deemed too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, all the Defendant and the prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion are without merit.

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