The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is a serious crime that may endanger the life and body of himself/herself and others, and the revised Road Traffic Act strengthened criminal punishment by raising the statutory penalty for the crime. In particular, when a person who has been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol more than twice again, a provision was newly established that the person who has been punished for driving under the influence of alcohol shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than three years or by a fine not less than 10 million won but not more than 10 million won. The crime of this case is deemed to have driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.127% by the defendant who has been under the influence of four times of criminal punishment due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act. Considering the fact that the crime of this case is deemed to have been driven under the influence of alcohol and the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol, etc., it is recognized that the

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have recognized the instant crime and committed the instant crime for a period of two months; (b) the Defendant had no record of having been sentenced to punishment; (c) the record of punishment for drinking immediately prior to the instant crime was made on November 27, 2009; (d) there was no additional damage, such as causing traffic accidents; (b) the Defendant again said that the Defendant would not repeat the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant is receiving the outpatient treatment using the hive disc; and (d) other favorable factors of sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (e) the means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is reasonable.