All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered on each of the defendants (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable

2. Determination

A. The first and second trials concurrently deliberated on the appeal cases against the judgment of the court below.

However, the crime of the first instance judgment was committed between April 2013 and January 2014. The Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment due to a separate violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 1, 2014.

Inasmuch as the crime of a resolution by the original adjudication was committed on August 22, 2017, the following crimes were committed, and thus, the crime of a resolution by the second adjudication does not constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, a separate sentence shall be imposed on the facts constituting the crime of the first and second judgment, and the lower judgment shall be separately determined as follows.

B. The judgment of the first instance court is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s health condition is not good due to disease, such as alcohol dependence on the early drinking.

However, it is recognized that the Defendant has caused a traffic accident while driving the instant drinking, the Defendant has already been sentenced to imprisonment once or twice for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and the Defendant has committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment of the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

The judgment of the court below of the second instance is based on the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the law, and the judgment is made simultaneously with the previous conviction in the relationship of single concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.