The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the grounds of appeal.

2. Considering the fact that the accused committed the instant crime again during the period of suspension of the execution of the same kind of crime even though he/she had been convicted of the same kind of crime, strict punishment against the accused is required.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant was living in custody for a period of not less than two months in depth; (b) the distance of the Defendant’s mistake was not clear; (c) the Defendant’s driving distance was not clear; and (d) the Defendant did not have any previous conviction; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex and environment; (b) the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the conditions of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable;

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is ruled again as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 152 of the Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Articles 152 subparagraph 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act that choose a penalty;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;