A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, three years of probation, community service order 200 hours, 40 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected, agreed with the victims, there is no previous conviction exceeding the fine, there is a family with good health that requires the support of the Defendant, and the Defendant appears to have been subject to the examination of alcohol use disorder after the instant case and continuously been subject to pharmacologic treatment up to the trial.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed while the defendant was driving in a state where normal driving is difficult due to alcohol and was inflicted injury on the victims. In light of the criminal facts, the defendant's negligence is heavy and the case is not less than that of the victim. The defendant committed the crime of this case when he was under trial after being punished by a fine due to the same kind of crime, and the blood alcohol concentration is 0.193% high.

There is no special relationship or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the political party, and in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances surrounding the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, it is not deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Defendant

We do not accept the prosecutor's assertion.

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.