The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the phrase “a person who has violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice” under Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act refers to a person who was found guilty of the crime of drinking, and is recognized to have violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice, as it is, not limited to the person who was found guilty of the crime of drinking. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle that found the person guilty of the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at least twice, by applying Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, not Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, but Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act as of May 29, 2017.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below is that “a person who has violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice” under Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act refers to the case where a person drives a drinking again after being convicted of the crime of drinking, which was affirmed by the judgment of conviction. Since at the time of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by May 29, 2017, the conviction on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by the person on April 10, 2017 was not confirmed at the time of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), the above provision cannot be punished, and thus, it cannot be punished under the above provision, and the judgment of the court below is not guilty, and it was pronounced guilty by applying Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act to the act of drinking in accordance with alcohol concentration among blood contained in this part.

B. “A person who has violated Article 44(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice” under Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act means (i) the legislative purport of this Article is to protect the lives and property of the people by repeatedly punishing a person who has violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and to ensure the safety of road traffic by repeatedly punishing the person, and (ii) the same is compared with those stipulated in other statutes as the elements for establishing “where a judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive.”