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., a two-year suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, a community service order of 80 hours, and an order to attend a law-abiding lecture of 40 hours) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The defendant recognized all his mistake and is in depth against his depth.

Due to the traffic accident caused by the defendant, the victims did not have any serious injury, and the victim H expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant.

There is no history that the defendant was punished in excess of the previous fine.

These circumstances can be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, drinking driving is a crime that needs to be strictly punished because it is very high risk of infringing on the life and body of others as well as himself.

The defendant had already been punished two times or more due to drinking driving (two times a fine) and again carried out drinking driving in this case, and caused the occurrence of a traffic accident resulting in the violation of signal during that process.

Nevertheless, the victims wish to punish the defendant because they did not agree with E, F, G, and I.

There is no part of the circumstances leading up to the defendant's drinking driving of the instant case, and the risk of recidivism is high because the defendant is driving under drinking repeatedly for a short time.

Therefore, it is necessary to punish the defendant with severe punishment corresponding to his responsibility, and considering all the sentencing factors shown in the argument in this case comprehensively, it is judged that the court below's sentencing the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in the main sentence after undergoing discretionary mitigation is too uncomparably unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

However, the social ties between the defendant and the defendant seems to be relatively clear, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the drinking driving of this case was not high, and the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment before.