The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a crime of driving a vehicle C, which is a vehicle, while serving in the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office (hereinafter “the office of the office of the office of the company of this case”).

At the time, the Defendant, while driving the instant door-to-door vehicle without wearing a safety bell, was regulated by the police officers, and the Defendant’s non-licenseed driving was discovered in the process.

The Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked on March 26, 2017, and this is because the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 0.071% during blood on February 9, 2017.

Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment on April 6, 2017 due to the above violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2017, and was during the suspended sentence at the time of the instant crime.

From October 2017, the Defendant had been working in the instant home-based company from around October 2017, and did not properly notify the history of criminal punishment for driving a motor vehicle at the time of employment and the circumstances that the driver’s license was revoked accordingly.

In the court of the first instance, F, the president of the instant selective distribution company, stated that the Defendant was in charge of the receipt, classification, removal, etc. of cargo while working as an office at the time of the instant crime. However, the aforementioned duties, such as the classification of cargo, are not a office, but a general delivery agent, and the instant crime also occurred while the Defendant was driving the instant selective vehicle.

In particular, the Defendant was forced to drive a written statement prepared on the day of committing the instant crime because it is difficult to lead a living with a means of living.

It also stated “.....”

Although the defendant was willing to commit the crime of this case, he was involved.