The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The phrase “when the circumstances prior to the opening” among the requirements for the suspension of judgment refers to cases where even if the sentence was not imposed in light of the degree of reflectivity comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the circumstance that the Defendant would not be subject to again committing a crime is clearly expected (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do6138, Feb. 20, 2003). It appears that the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime, and that there is no criminal power against the Defendant, and that the Defendant has committed a donation activity for a considerable period of time.

However, in general, it is widely known that drinking driving constitutes a very dangerous act, and the social damage therefrom is increasing, and the revision of the Road Traffic Act, which strengthens the blood alcohol concentration standard in the state of drunk driving prohibited by driving, and greatly raised the statutory penalty for drinking driving, reflecting the public opinion demanding strong punishment against drinking drivers, seems to have been effective since June 25, 2019, and the defendant was also aware of this. However, in light of all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in the instant case, it is difficult to view that the defendant would not be subject to the punishment even if not sentenced to punishment, in light of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, since the defendant cannot be deemed to have remarkably shown the circumstances of the opening, the court below's postponement of the sentence of a fine to the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] Criminal facts.