All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Considering the Defendant’s perception of committing the instant crime, the Defendant’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, and forty hours of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who had been punished several times, including punishment due to the same crime as the instant case by the prosecutor, committed the instant crime of drunk driving at another time, and the risk of recidivism is high, and the blood alcohol concentration level is also very high, the lower court’s punishment is rather unreasonable.

2. In full view of the fact that the lower court appears to have determined the sentence by taking into account the above circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the lower court’s sentence is adequate and too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the application of Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act is obvious that “Article 148-2(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018)” is a clerical error in Article 148-2(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act. As such, it