The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime not only committed the instant crime while under the influence of alcohol while driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, but also did not seem to be inconsistent with the defense that it was difficult for students and other teachers to deny the instant crime at the investigation stage and at the court of the original instance to understand the punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol, and that it was very bad in the nature of the crime. The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the Defendant’s driving under the influence of alcohol was high, and that the Defendant was a public educational official, even though he was in the position to serve as the school inspector at the office of education of the Sejong City Office of Education at the time of the instant crime.

However, the court below's sentence against the defendant is somewhat unreasonable in full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the theory of this case, including the defendant's age, sex behavior, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., and all of the following circumstances, such as the records and changes in the sentencing of this case, are taken into account: (a) the defendant led the defendant to the crime of this case late in the court; (b) the defendant led the defendant living in custody for a considerable period of time; (c) the defendant led to his confession without prison labor; (d) the defendant constitutes grounds for the necessary reduction or exemption of punishment under the Criminal Act; and (e) the defendant did not want the punishment; and (e) the risk of criminal punishment due to the defendant's act without prison labor is not realized because the defendant did not prosecute the defendant; and (e) the defendant was the first offender; and (e)

3. In conclusion, 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 with merit, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Grounds for the new judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court.