A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) although the Defendant had been already punished several times due to a fine or suspended sentence due to drinking driving, as before the judgment of the court below, the Defendant left to the instant crime; and (b) the alcohol concentration in the blood transfusion of this case is not lower than 0.189%, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant led to the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, sold the vehicle of this case, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the suspended execution.

In full view of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the process and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too heavy, too heavy, or unreasonable since it is too low. Therefore, each of the unfair sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the Prosecutor are without merit.

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