The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

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

Judgment

It is an unfavorable sentencing factor that the defendant has five same criminal records including the two suspended sentence.

However, considering the fact that the defendant does not repeat again while he commits his crime, there is room for consideration in the circumstances that the defendant would not repeat again, the driving distance is 50 meters, the social relation of the defendant is clear, the defendant's will and his family members want to guide the defendant, the defendant's previous crime of drinking driving is relatively old, and there has been no detection of the defendant due to drinking driving or violation of traffic regulations for the last four years, and the fact that the defendant has to support his parents and children is the most favorable sentencing factor. Considering the whole of the various sentencing materials, the court below's argument is unreasonable since it is recognized that the defendant's punishment is inappropriate.

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;