A. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing the Defendant’s crime, the fact that the Defendant driven a drinking of approximately 500 meters in the vicinity of the destination while a substitute engineer was on duty, and that the Defendant supports the parents who have a disability in economic difficult circumstances and the children who have a young child, is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant was punished by a fine for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2009 and 2010. On January 5, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for an accident after driving under the influence of alcohol on January 13, 2018 and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 13, 2018. The Defendant committed the instant crime only for five months, and the Defendant committed the instant blood alcohol content at a higher level than 0.158%.

In full view of the above circumstances and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, since the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or too unreasonable, each of the Defendant and the prosecutor’s arguments cannot be accepted.

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