A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the arguments of the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

It is recognized that the Defendant had a previous record of being punished by a fine due to drunk driving, that the blood alcohol concentration in this case is very high to 0.320%, and that the Defendant had a contact while driving a drinking again on the same day when he was controlled by drunk driving.

However, it is also recognized that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes in this case and reflects against the defendant, there is a family member to support the defendant, and his family members want to support the defendant's wife, the second drinking driving of this case seems to have some circumstances to consider the situation, the defendant agreed with the victim of contact accident, the damage to public goods was restored, the defendant is a disabled person of Grade 6 in visual disability, the defendant's criminal record of drinking driving of the defendant was about 200 years.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.