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

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

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: the defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 1 year of suspended execution and was sentenced to 6 months of suspended execution and 1 year of suspended execution, and the defendant was sentenced to 6 months of suspended execution and 1 year of suspended execution, and 6 months of suspended execution and 1 year of suspended execution. The defendant committed the crime of this case against the defendant.

On the other hand, the distance from driving a drinking or non-licenseless driving of the instant accident is relatively short, and the Defendant recovered property damage caused by the instant accident, the Defendant reflects his fault while committing the commission of the crime, and the social ties are relatively clear, such as the Defendant’s family relation, age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be considered as being chronic dystrophy, etc., given that the Defendant’s health is not good and there is a family member to support the instant accident, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as excessive or unreasonable because it appears within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

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