The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is determined by the Defendant’s act of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.193% during the suspension period due to the Defendant’s act of driving without a license for driving without a license, thereby causing injury to four victims requiring four weeks’ medical treatment, and as such, the illegality of the act of driving the vehicle and the punishment of illegal consequences are not provided for.

In addition, in full view of the fact that the defendant has been subject to three times criminal punishment due to the so-called so-called so-called "dacting operation" or the so-called crime, it is necessary to punish the defendant with severe penalty corresponding to the responsibility for the crime.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the mistake in depth.

In addition, the defendant agreed with all victims, and the victims have not been punished.

Furthermore, the Defendant is making efforts to prevent recidivism by receiving alcohol dependence treatment, etc.

In addition, the victims seem to have not received any special treatment except for the medical treatment for two to three days in Korea due to the instant traffic accident (Evidence 1, 2-2), and the extent of actual damage is difficult to view that the extent of actual damage is enormous. In addition, in full view of the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the traffic accident crimes such as this case, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

another judgment.