A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The following facts are favorable to the Defendant.

The Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and is against the law.

Vehicles operated by the defendant are covered by comprehensive motor vehicle insurance.

Traffic accident victims and police officers do not want to punish defendants.

There is no record that the defendant has been punished beyond a fine.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The defendant has been punished four times due to drinking driving.

The Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol and did not take any measures to cause a traffic accident.

Since the driver's license was revoked due to the traffic accident, there is a high possibility of criticism by driving while drinking alcohol.

alcohol concentration in blood is 0.098% and 0.115% high.

Among the crimes of this case, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime because it is not good in the case of obstructing the performance of official duties.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is not deemed unfair, and thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.