A. The defendant (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized drinking driving of the instant case is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the blood alcohol concentration (0.173%) at the time of the pertinent drunk driving is relatively high, the Defendant had four times a criminal record of drunk driving, among which they had a criminal record of suspended sentence, and the fact that the instant drunk driving was conducted during the suspended sentence is an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendant.

In addition, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions that may be newly considered in this court compared to the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the drinking driving of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable.

3. The appeal 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.