A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. On October 19, 2012, the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment several times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., a suspended sentence, a fine), a violation of the Road Traffic Act (ii) and a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (ii). On October 19, 2012, the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period even though he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (ii) and two years for a suspended sentence.

The crime of this case was committed not only by the defendant drinking, driving without a license, but also by refusing to comply with a police officer's legitimate request for measurement of drinking, but also by using a vehicle owned by the police, which was parked in a police box with a complaint in the control, and is also a bad crime.

However, it is against the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case, and there are favorable circumstances such as the victims' desire to take the defendant's wife by agreement with the victims.

In addition, examining the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime, method and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and it cannot be deemed that the sentence is too heavy or unreasonable.

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