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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Circumstances favorable to the defendant are as follows.

The defendant is divided into and reflected in the crime of this case.

The defendant has agreed with the victim of the traffic accident in the investigative agency, and the victim is seeking the action against the defendant.

There is no criminal history other than drinking driving.

The defendant seems to have experienced economic difficulties after divorce and supports a mother who is not good health.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

The defendant, while driving under the influence of 0.198% in blood, was absent from the scene without taking any measures to prevent traffic accidents.

In 205 and 2009, the defendant was punished by a fine for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2009, and in 2013, the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to driving under the influence of alcohol.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, career, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable or too unreasonable.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit.

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