All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, at the time of driving, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.220% while driving, and thus, it was impossible to properly change things.

Therefore, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant with mental disorder, but the court below did not consider such circumstance, which erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s above sentence is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, would drive relatively less than the Defendant, as the victim was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to drive normally

Due to such means as doing so, there was no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

It is not visible.

B. A child is not a household.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had been in a state of suspension of license due to a drinking driving in the past, the Defendant, even though he predicted or could have predicted the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of drinking, caused his mental and physical weakness.

Since the defendant can not claim the above conditions due to reasons for the dismissal of responsibility or the mitigation of responsibility pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The foregoing legal doctrine is based on the foregoing.