A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

It is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and the crime of this case is committed on November 29, 2018 and the crime of this case is committed in the concurrent relation between the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in which the two-year suspended sentence was finalized on August 29, 2018 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the equality with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time. It is recognized that the defendant's

However, it is also recognized that the defendant has already been sentenced twice to a total of 16 times of punishment, including one punishment due to drinking driving, and the defendant has already been sentenced to a total of 16 times of punishment including three times of punishment due to a crime of double-class crime, and that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration in this case is higher than 0.239%.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.