The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

It is a favorable circumstance that the defendant has divided his mistake and reflected his mistake, and that the defendant has not committed a second offense.

However, the Defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case is not specified as 0.135%. In particular, the Defendant caused the risk of a larger accident, such as the collision of the chemical flachial line of the so-called ambals by gross negligence due to the driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, the Defendant repeated each of the crimes in this case even though he had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant appears to have considered the favorable circumstances for the Defendant at the lower court. In light of the following facts: (a) there is no special circumstance or change that may be considered in sentencing; and (b) there is no other special circumstance or circumstance that is newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower court; and (c) there is no other circumstance or circumstance that the Defendant’s age, character, and environment

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, under the second sentence of the judgment of the court below, the "Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act" means Article 148-2 (2) 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 7 of the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015) is a clerical error in the Act on Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (wholly amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015). Thus, it shall be corrected under Article

.