A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (ten months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment defendant tried not to repeat the crime in depth, and agreed to do so with all victims of non-compliance with the eviction and traffic accidents.

As a result, the defendant is a recipient of basic living with a physical disability of grade 5, and his father who suffers from dementia in need of support by the defendant, and her mother who has difficulty in living with her hyspathnism and middle students.

However, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he had been punished several times for drinking, unlicensed and traffic-related crimes.

On December 9, 2013, when driving under the influence of alcohol 0.112% without a license on December 9, 2013, and when the police crackdowns on the police, the quality of the crime is not weak because it unlawfully uses another person's resident registration number prior to being under the influence of his/her resident registration number as if he/she were his/her resident registration number. While the prosecution was instituted for the crime as a result of the crime, he/she repeatedly conducted drinking and without a license three times in the event that the crime was instituted, and caused a traffic accident to inflict an injury on two victims by drilling of the damaged vehicle, and cause a traffic accident by being destroyed by a fluent rice.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, the sentence imposed by the court below shall not be deemed to be adequate, too minor, or unreasonable.

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