1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months;

3. One of the keyss to the seized motor vehicle;

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. It is also recognized that the Defendant had already been convicted of having been punished three times in total due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, including one time of the suspended sentence. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period, which became final and conclusive on November 3, 2017 by imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime on the same crime, six months, and two years, and which was sentenced to the suspended execution. The blood alcohol concentration in the instant case is very high to 0.218%, 0.257%, and 0.29%; the Defendant was able to escape while driving under the influence of alcohol in the instant case on September 27, 2018; the Defendant was present at the investigative agency as of September 27, 2018, and there was lack of compliance consciousness, such as again driving without a license for drinking alcohol.

However, it is also recognized that there is a family member to support, such as the fact that the defendant has been recognized as all of the crimes of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant is committed in the first instance, the prevention of recidivism is conducted, the fact that there is no criminal record, the damage has been recovered, the agreement has been reached with the victim, the health of the defendant is not good, and if the sentence is finalized in this case, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months which has been suspended is invalidated and the above sentence is additionally reinstated.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, etc., the above sentence imposed by the court below is somewhat inappropriate.

3. The judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

(However, the judgment of the court below is clear that the second part of the judgment " May 26, 2017" is a clerical error in " November 3, 2017," and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.