The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s sentence (the 3 years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment for eight months, the 2 years of observation of protection, and the 40 hours of compulsory driving) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination is against the defendant's recognition of each of the crimes of this case, and it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant disposes of his vehicle as an indication that the defendant would not once again drive drinking or drive without a license.

However, drinking driving is a crime that is highly likely to infringe not only on the driver's life and property but also on the other person's life and property.

The Defendant, even before committing each of the crimes of this case, has been subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to drinking or non-licensed driving.

In particular, in 2008, the police was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence due to drinking driving, and the police was sentenced to a fine by driving without a license in 2009 during the suspended sentence period.

In addition, in 2014, it was sentenced to a fine by drinking and driving without a license respectively.

The defendant has repeatedly committed the same crime for a considerable period of time, and in the process, it seems that there is a lack of serious reflectiveness about drinking and non-licensed driving even though the defendant has been placed a preference several times by this court.

The current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking at least twice in order to prevent the driving of drinking, which threatens the safety of road traffic, and to realize the awareness of such a violation, shall be punished more strictly if he/she drives a drinking again. In light of the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant in light of the legislative intent of the Road Traffic Act.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.