The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for a term of one year, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service, 240 hours of participation in compliance driving and 80 hours of participation in compliance driving) that the court below sentenced the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against depth, the driving distance is not relatively long, and the fact that if the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment, it may have a considerable influence on the operation of the Defendant’s business and the living of its employees, etc.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine twice in 2005 and 2009 due to a drunk driving, and thereafter, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on January 6, 201 when he was sentenced to a traffic accident that intrudes the central line during a drunk driving. However, the Defendant again committed the crime of driving without a license under the influence of alcohol again during the period of suspended sentence, and thus, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not weak.

Furthermore, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s primary exploitation level at the time of committing the instant crime was very high at 0.297% of blood alcohol concentration; (b) the risk was realized, such as the Defendant’s actual occurrence of an accident involving the protection wall; (c) the social awareness about the harm of drinking driving is very high; and (d) the law also regulates a strict punishment for drinking driving differently from the past; (b) the suspension of the execution of a fine or imprisonment alone seems to have a limitation on controlling the Defendant’s wrong driving habits; and (c) taking into account other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; (d) the means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the lower court’s delayed execution of the sentence is deemed to be unreasonable because it is too unreasonable after having sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable.

3. On the other hand, the prosecutor's appeal is justified. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.