Defendant shall be punished by a fine of nine million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. Although the Defendant had been punished twice due to drinking driving, he again prevented the instant crime.

However, the defendant does not drive again.

In this regard, the vehicle owned was disposed of.

Although there are two times the criminal records of drinking driving, each of the defendants was punished by a fine of one million won and four million won, and there is no criminal records except the above records.

In addition, if the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the suspension of the execution of imprisonment to the Defendant, is maintained, the Defendant, who supported the Defendant’s family, loses his occupation by being subject to dismissal from the workplace. As such, considering such social constraints that the Defendant ought to bear due to criminal conduct as an element of sentencing, it is difficult to consider such disadvantages in the status as well as determining the punishment, as consistent with the principle of the individualization of punishment application.

B. The sentence of a fine in this case cannot be viewed as a minor punishment, in light of the general sentencing cases in the crime of drinking driving, even without considering the fact that the defendant's occupational loss is the risk of the defendant's loss.

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the suspension of the execution of imprisonment to a prison labor is deemed unfair and unfair as it is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.