The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is deemed to have driven an Oral boom that the Defendant, without a motorcycle driver's license, was not covered by mandatory insurance while under the influence of alcohol 0.102% of the blood alcohol concentration without a motorcycle driver's license, and the illegality of such act is not somewhat harsh.

Furthermore, the Defendant had a record of being punished once a suspended sentence of 2010 and four times of fines for the same crime prior to the instant crime. However, even though the Defendant was issued a summary order on April 16, 2014, it is difficult to deem that the risk of repeating the instant crime is low by repeatedly committing the instant crime, such as repeatedly committing the said crime.

In addition, considering the fact that the defendant has been punished five times by fine even for other crimes, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

However, the defendant is showing the attitude of the investigative agency to see all the crimes of this case and to repent his mistake in depth.

In addition, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, returned home, and committed the instant crime, and thus did not infringe other legal interests.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) there was no record that the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment or heavier punishment before committing the instant crime; (b) there was no record that the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment or heavier punishment before 17 years prior to the divorce with his wife; (c) there was an adjoining work for the economically difficult circumstances; and (d) there was a defect in the health of the aged parents and the young children; and (c) the father has a defect in hearing that the mother suffers from the urology and the merger certificate; and (d) other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court seems to be somewhat unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified.