A. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the judgment, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he/she was under criminal punishment twice due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol), and in particular, even though he/she was aware on January 7, 2018 that his/her driver’s license is revoked and will be prosecuted due to the crime on February 8, 2018, and the Defendant committed the crime on February 8, 2018. As such, the Defendant repeated driving of alcohol and thus, is highly likely to repeat the crime.

The fact that the defendant appears to be disadvantageous to the defendant, the fact that the defendant is recognized all of his mistakes, and the victims have not been punished against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and considering all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or it seems unfair because it is too heavy. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below. [The part of the "1. On-the-spot report (the process of the suspect's accident and the refusal of drinking, etc.)" in the summary of the evidence of the judgment below is a clerical error of "1. On-the-spot report (the process of the suspect's accident and drinking refusal against the suspect A)", and it is obvious that it is a clerical error of "1. On-the-spot report (the process of the suspect's accident and drinking refusal