The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. On February 5, 2016, each of the instant crimes committed on April 18, 2016, including: (a) the Defendant committed a crime of drinking on April 18, 2016, once again for about two months after he/she was controlled by the crime of drinking on February 5, 2016; (b) the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime in light of the content and method of the crime; (c) the degree of alcohol concentration in blood from the crime of drinking on April 18, 2016, is relatively high to 0.232%; (d) the risk of the occurrence of a traffic accident is realized; and (e) the fact that the Defendant was punished on several occasions due to the same kind of crime, etc. is deemed to be disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant recognized all the criminal facts of this case and reflects his mistake in depth; on February 5, 2016, the amount of alcohol concentration in the blood of a person driving under drinking on February 5, 2016 was relatively high by 0.053%; the defendant was detained for more than three months in this case for more than three months, and it seems that the seriousness of punishment due to the repetition of a crime under drinking driving, etc. is sufficiently impaired; the defendant again does not stop from committing the same kind of crime.

C. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the instant vehicle is scrapped and the Defendant’s family members, etc. want to take the Defendant’s preemptive position; (b) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment; (c) the motive, process, means and consequence of the instant crime; (d) the circumstances after the instant crime; (e) criminal records; (e) family relationship; and (e) other circumstances that are conditions for the instant sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment; and (e) the Defendant’s motive, process, means and consequence of the instant crime as indicated in the argument in the instant case; and (e) the Defendant’s criminal records, family relationship, and economic circumstances, it is recognized that maintaining the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair