All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the event of the instant crime of mental and physical disorder, the alcohol addiction caused by alcohol addiction was in the state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. According to the records of judgment on the Defendant’s mental disorder assertion, the fact that the Defendant took drinking at the time of the instant crime is recognized.

However, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration, the Defendant directly signed “D”, which is a pro-friendly name, in the report on the circumstances of the host driver at the time of control, and the fact that said fact was verbally expressed to the pro-friendly D on the day following the enforcement date, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have or weak the intent or ability to discern things under the influence of alcohol

Furthermore, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that "the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder as a person." This provision includes not only a free act in a cause caused by intention but also a free act in a cause caused by negligence. Thus, even though it was possible to anticipate the occurrence of danger, it is also applicable to a case where a person's mental disorder was caused by a person's mental disorder. If the defendant was under the influence of alcohol with the intention to drive under the influence of alcohol and was under the influence of alcohol, even if he predicted the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol, it constitutes a case where the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol was predicted, and thus

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do4484, Jul. 27, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant had the history of having been punished by drinking alcohol driving and fabrication of private documents, etc., as well as the Defendant’s refusal of drinking alcohol measurement.