The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. As the lower court explained on the grounds of sentencing, the Defendant was punished three times due to drinking driving, and was punished once due to driving without a license, and the Defendant got a person while driving under drinking and escaped again, and had the occurrence of an accident.

However, at the court below, the defendant agreed with the victim I and K in particular, and agreed with all the victims of the crime of this case by agreement with the victim H, and it is against the depth of the crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and the theory of changes, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, and circumstances after the crime, and the range of recommended sentencing guidelines (a period of 8 months to 11 months) and the range of recommended sentences (a period of 8 months to 11 months), the escape/injury after traffic accident, and the basic area (a period of punishment is not punishable and aggravated: where the illegality in the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is heavy), the sentence of the court below is deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable (Provided, That the defendant has committed the crime of this case again even if he had committed the same kind of crime, and even after having committed the same kind of crime, it is inevitable to punish the defendant). Accordingly, the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is ruled as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That the facts charged in the judgment of the court below are obvious that the facts charged in the judgment below are clerical errors, and thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “ around September 11, 2015, 07:12.”