The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended sentence in August, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,00 on May 4, 2007, and a fine of KRW 2.5 million on August 4, 2008 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking). The Defendant committed the instant crime at the same time, and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime is very high to 0.208% is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the following are the circumstances that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant, the two times more than nine years have elapsed from driving under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the Defendant was registered as a person of distinguished service to the State on December 10, 1993 due to the injury under the real name of the right side of the mine explosion accident caused by the military service while serving in the military (10 as reference material for the reason of appeal by July 24, 2017). The Defendant appears to have been trying to voluntarily attend the special traffic safety education conducted by the Road Traffic Authority and sell the recent driving vehicle (8,99 as reference material for the reasons of appeal by the Defendant on July 24, 201), and there is no record of the crime of suspended execution or more, and the fact that the Defendant raises two children alone on January 5, 201 and after divorce.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. As 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 decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in each 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..