The judgment below

The part of each crime except each of the crimes of 2016 order 4672 shall be reversed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is too unreasonable (six months of imprisonment with prison labor and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes) that the court below pronounced in the main sentence of the appeal by the defendant.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal on the remaining crimes except each of the crimes listed in the judgment below, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority regarding the remaining crimes, the prosecutor examined ex officio on the part of the judgment below as to the remaining crimes except the crimes listed in the order 4672 of the order of 2016 and the part as to the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court below. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor instigated the defendant to conceal the "inception of the offender" among the names of the remaining crimes in the remaining part of the crime in the above judgment, as the "inception of the offender."

The phrase “scambing” in the part “discambing” applied for changes to “cambing,” and this Court permitted the same and changed to the subject of the adjudication. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below as to each of the remaining crimes except each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below 2016 High Court Decision 4672.

3. The following are the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the lower court’s judgment on each crime set forth in the first sentence of 2016, the time and distance from the hours of driving without a license for drinking is relatively short; (b) the risk therefrom is realized; (c) the Defendant has not caused any traffic accident; (d) the Defendant is in profoundly against the criminal intent and wrong; and (e) the Defendant has to take into account equity with the case of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (a punishment: one year of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution), which is a previous offense as stated in the judgment of the lower court.

On the other hand, in addition to the previous convictions, the Defendant had a record of being sentenced to a fine on several occasions due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and committed the instant crime even though he was tried due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the instant crime reaches 0.190%, and there are other circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, and circumstances after committing the instant crime.