The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The lower court’s sentence (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service, 160 hours of compulsory driving, and 40 hours of compulsory driving) on the gist of the grounds for appeal is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Circumstances favorable to the defendant are as follows.

The defendant recognized the crime of this case and again refused to drive without a license or to drive under drinking.

However, in light of the following disadvantageous circumstances, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to the punishment for the defendant.

The Defendant was punished by a fine for drinking in 200, 2003, 2008, and 2008, and was sentenced to a punishment for 4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 3 years of protection observation, and 40 hours of lectures due to drinking, even around 2010.

However, even though the Defendant was sentenced to a fine by driving a drinking again in around 2014, the Defendant again committed each of the crimes in this case due to the lapse of two years thereafter.

In addition, the defendant has been sentenced to a fine due to the driverless driving in 2000 and 2010.

In light of the defendant's records of drinking driving and driving without a license, it is difficult to expect that the defendant will not repeat again only by a fine or a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

The decision is judged.

Moreover, the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving under the influence of 0.315% alcohol concentration in blood. After an accident, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to look at the victim’s report even after the Defendant’s dispatch. In addition, there was a possibility that serious physical and human damage may occur as much as the Defendant committed the instant crime.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, career, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

The prosecutor’s assertion.