The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one year of probation, and 40 hours of an order to attend a course) of the lower court is too unreasonable;

2. The judgment of the Defendant, even though he had the history of punishment once due to drinking driving, has engaged in driving under the influence of alcohol, and has caused a traffic accident and has inflicted an injury on two victims, and thus, the Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, it is recognized that the court below's punishment is unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the defendant led to the confession of the crime, his mistake in depth, and (b) the fact that he will not repeat again; (c) the victims and the victims want to take the front line with the victim; (d) the defendant was punished by drinking driving; (c) the defendant was punished by a fine of 700,000 won prior to the year in this case; (d) the defendant was unable to perform his duties as a certified public accountant for two years after the suspension and termination of the sentence; and (e) the period of suspension of execution and the period of suspension of execution, if the sentence of the sentence becomes final and conclusive, it may be difficult to maintain his livelihood by taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal 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

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3(1), the proviso to Article 3(2)8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (a point of injury caused by occupational negligence), Article 268 of the former Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts.