A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

2. In light of the fact that the judgment of the accused has the ability to be punished due to drunk driving, and in particular, it has been repeated one year after the execution of imprisonment was completed due to the same kind of crime, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was very high, and the traffic accident occurred, it is necessary to strictly punish the accused.

However, the lower court’s punishment seems to be somewhat unreasonable if examining all the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, the environment, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., including the fact that no personal injury was caused due to the accident caused by the drinking drinking of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the offense and summary of evidence, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a person who commits a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a heavier drinking operation);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;