A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the current Road Traffic Act, including the Defendant’s self-driving on April 1, 2007 and self-driving on October 27, 2007, on the ground that Article 148-2 (2) of the Road Traffic Act should not include the previous conviction on December 9, 201, which is the date of the enforcement of the said Act, in the previous conviction of Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the said Act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 201; effective December 9, 201) provides that a person who again violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions and requires a person who drives a motor vehicle, etc. under influence of alcohol to be punished by imprisonment with labor for at least one year but not more than three years or by a fine of at least ten million won, but not more than ten million won, in violation of Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 2011; see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1429, Dec. 9, 2011).

B. The fact that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, the occurrence of another traffic accident due to drinking driving does not occur, and the defendant is under the attitude of the judgment of the court below.