All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of unfair sentencing by the public prosecutor and the defendant are also examined.

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the recognition and reflection of the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the family members to be supported; and (c) the Defendant’s family members expressed a strong leading intention to the Defendant.

On the other hand, in light of the background and method of the crime, etc., the crime is bad, and even though there was a history of punishment several times, including the suspension of imprisonment for the same kind and type of crime, the crime of this case has been repeatedly committed, and it is deemed that the risk of recidivism is considerably high. The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime is considerably high, and the drinking driving is highly likely to cause the accident, and the risk of the occurrence of the accident is large, and requires severe punishment for it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, the sentencing of the lower court is too weak in full view of various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.