A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) the fact that the defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect his mistake; (b) the distance of the defendant's driving is not long; and (c) some of the circumstances that can be taken into account in the living environment of the defendant.

However, there are several penalties against the defendant due to the same criminal act, and the prosecution was instituted for the same criminal act on April 4, 2020 without being aware of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence) on November 5, 2019, and the prosecution was made for the same criminal act on April 4, 2020. The fact that there was no opening, and there was a high possibility of criticism. At the same time, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is disadvantageous to the defendant. In full view of all kinds of sentencing sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed as being adequate and unreasonable.

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