A. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment for six months, the suspended sentence for two years, the observation of protection, the community service order for 80 hours, the order to attend a lecture for 24 hours, the order to attend a lecture for 40 hours, and the order to attend a alcohol treatment lecture for 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The defendant's confession of each of the crimes of this case and reflects his own mistake in depth is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, there is a number of records that the defendant has been punished for the same crime, and the fact that the defendant drives an expressway while under the influence of alcohol is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, since there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that can be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the following facts are comprehensively considered in light of the records and various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the background of each of the instant crimes, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or it is deemed unfair as it is fluent. Therefore, the above assertion

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.