The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12,000,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. There are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that it is a crime during the suspension of the execution of judgment, the previous penal force exists for drinking driving, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration is high at the time of committing the instant crime, and the occurrence of contact with the parked vehicle.

On the other hand, the suspended sentence is a crime of different types, and the defendant has no record of traffic crime except for the punishment of a fine due to drinking driving in 2018.

After the judgment of the court below was rendered, it agreed with the victim of contact accident.

In this case, if imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment is finalized, the punishment which has been previously suspended should be imposed, and this is too harsh compared to the defendant's act.

The sentence of the court below was detained for five months after the sentence of the court below was pronounced.

One child after divorce is supported by one child, being treated by the addiction control center and not re-offending.

Examining the aforementioned conditions of sentencing in the records and arguments of this case, such as equity with the sentencing of similar cases similar to the defendant's circumstances, and the age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, the circumstances of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again ruled as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose a sentence;