All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, while recognizing the fact of the instant crime, reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth through a prison life with a quantity of more than two months, and supports old-parents who are not healthy due to urology, etc., the lower court’s punishment (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering the fact that the Defendant, who had been punished several times due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, including the crime of the crime of the same kind of drinking driving as the instant case, repeatedly committed the instant crime and thus, the risk of recidivism is considerable, the above sentence of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, 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 it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below sentenced the defendant to the above punishment on the grounds of the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances alleged by the defendant and the prosecutor are already considered in the court below's sentencing, and the defendant and the prosecutor did not submit new sentencing data that could change the sentence in the court below at the court below. Other factors such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, criminal records, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered, the court below's punishment against the defendant is deemed appropriate, and it cannot be recognized that the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too heavy or unfeasible.

3. If so, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is justified.