All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable because of the above excessive punishment of the court below (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor), and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, despite having been punished several times by the Defendant due to drinking, determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking or without a license during the period of suspension of execution; (b) the Defendant is against the Defendant; (c) the driving distance is relatively short; and (d) the Defendant’s age, family environment, and child is relatively short; and (c) the Defendant’s age

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too low.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.