The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for one year and six months, the suspension of execution for four years, the course of compliance driving for forty hours, and the community service order for forty hours) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has the ability to punish drunk driving, the fact that blood alcohol concentration is high at the time of the crime of this case, and the central separation zone and contact occurrence occur.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against himself.

Although the defendant caused an accident while driving in the state of his driving, there was no personal or material damage except the damage to the defendant's vehicle due to this accident.

The defendant has no record of traffic crime since he was punished for a drunk driving in 2009.

Examining the aforementioned conditions of sentencing in the records and arguments of this case, such as equity with the sentencing of similar cases similar to the defendant's circumstances, and the age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, the circumstances of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again ruled as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing prior to the grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act.