All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance judgment: The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of surveillance, and forty hours of instruction in compliance driving) of the first instance judgment on the appeal by the public prosecutor is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. The second instance judgment: The second instance judgment’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) by Defendant’s appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the appeal case against the lower judgment as to whether to reverse ex officio, was consolidated in the first instance trial, on June 9, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in thecheon Branch of the Daejeon District Court on April 9, 2015, and became final and conclusive on June 17, 2015. As such, each crime of the lower judgment on the first instance judgment is in the relation of the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced

Therefore, each of the above cases was merged.

Even if one punishment is not imposed, the judgment of the court below is not reversed ex officio on the ground of the above consolidation, and the court below divided the grounds for appeal against the judgment below into two.

B. The judgment of the court below on the first instance is that at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is relatively high by 0.182%, and the driving distance of drinking is short by about 1 km.

Although it is difficult to see that the defendant had been punished six times due to the same crime (including once the actual punishment), he/she again reaches the crime of this case, etc., it is disadvantageous.

On the other hand, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant all of the crimes of this case is the confession, the defendant scrapped the vehicle used for the crime of this case under the fact that the defendant would not repeat again, and the punishment should be determined in consideration of equity with the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the obstruction of the execution of official duties for which the judgment has become final and conclusive and the obstruction of the execution of official duties,

In addition, the motive and background of each of the crimes in this case, means and methods, circumstances before and after the crimes, and other circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, career, and environment.