The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable, because the punishment imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion.

A. Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act prohibits the driving of a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol, and Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) provides that “any person who violates the provisions of Article 44(1) on at least two occasions” and again, a person who drives a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for at least one year up to three years or by a fine of at least five million won but not exceeding ten million won.

The instant provision stipulates that the subject of the act is not simply a person who has violated the regulations on the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving at least twice, and does not limit the scope to cases where the person was sentenced to punishment or was convicted of a final judgment of conviction due to such violation.

The purpose of this is to strengthen the punishment for repeated drinking driving, prevent risks to the lives and bodies of the people caused by drinking driving, and establish traffic order by reflecting the reflective nature of the person who repeatedly violates the prohibition of drinking driving, i.e., compliance spirit or safety awareness on traffic regulations, etc.

In full view of the language and purport of the foregoing provision, the phrase “a person who has violated Article 44(1) not less than twice” in the provision of this case should be interpreted as a person who has been found to have been engaged in drunk driving by violating the prohibition of drunk driving at least twice the language and text, and it does not require the sentence or final and conclusive judgment of conviction.

B. Of the lower judgment, the summary of the facts charged in the case No. 2018 Goju District Court 2018 Godan1954 (hereinafter “instant facts charged”) is as follows.

The accused of criminal records is at the Cheongju District Court on March 16, 2017.