The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant had already been punished seven times as a result of drinking driving or a non-compliance with a drinking test, and the number of times the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence among them reaches three times.

The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on November 17, 2015 due to drinking driving, etc. (the Jeonju District Court 2015Da1425, 76 pages of investigation records). The Defendant committed the instant crime again despite having been sentenced to probation, community service, and lecture attendance order, by granting the Defendant an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior at the time, and by rendering a suspended sentence to prevent recidivism.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration high, the time period of drunk driving is 16:39, the day yet to be clear, and the Defendant was trying to drive a restaurant even though he was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was trying to drive and parked the restaurant, the Defendant seems to have no criminal liability for drunk driving.

The defendant seems to be unable to prevent recidivism only with the additional disposition.

The sentence on the accused is inevitable.

Comprehensively taking account of all these factors of sentencing, the lower court seems to be somewhat unafluent.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Act on Criminal facts and the

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;