The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the accused (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was high at the time of the instant case, and that the victim suffered injury, such as pressure pressure, etc. requiring approximately eight weeks of treatment, the issue is more serious.

On the other hand, if the defendant pays 12 million won to the trial for the first time and the victim seeks the preference by mutual agreement with the victim, the defendant supports his mother-child, the defendant has no record of being punished for driving prior to the instant case, the defendant disposes of the instant vehicle prior to the instant case and does not repeat it, the defendant has an opportunity to reflect again, and the defendant has an opportunity to reflect after being detained in one month, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and conduct, etc., are comprehensively taken into account, it is recognized that there is a need to reduce the sentence by somewhat inappropriate means.

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

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] The facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting a crime in the original judgment, and the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the original judgment. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) and Article 3 (8) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Article 148-2 (2) 3 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving and the choice of imprisonment) concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and (2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act are unreasonable.