The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (a fine of five million won, a stay of execution two years, and an order to attend a course) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment defendant has been punished for drunk driving in 2006.

The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant case is not lower than 0.098%.

In addition, the Road Traffic Act was amended to severely punish a drunk driver as the need for social harm and eradicating the drunk driver's drinking driving has been amended, and the defendant committed the crime of this case after the revised Road Traffic Act was enforced.

Considering the following circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the distance of drinking driving in this case is relatively short, and the Defendant was driving while failing to be able to be able to take advantage of the circumstances after the crime, which led to the instant crime while driving under the condition that the Defendant had not been able to take full advantage of the preceding day; the Defendant recognized and closely reflects the instant crime; the Defendant was diagnosed with class 5 disability due to a bad strekele; and the Defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again; and the Defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the Defendant to the suspension of the execution of a fine is deemed unfair

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

[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 the

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Detention at a workhouse;