All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment of the court below (eight months of imprisonment) against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unfied, and the prosecutor is too unfied and unfair.

2. The rationale behind the Defendant’s acknowledgement of each of the instant crimes is favorable.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same crime such as drinking, driving without a license, refusal of drinking, etc. (including two times before the suspension of execution, two times before the sentence, and one time after the sentence) is high, the defendant driving a motor vehicle which has not been covered by mandatory insurance in the state of re-licenseed without a license during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and committed each crime of this case by failing to comply with the police officer's demand for

In full view of the above circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, including the circumstances after the crime, and the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court of first instance, and where the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is not deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too heavy or unab

3. As such, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the application of the law of the court below to the court below is obvious that the omission of "1. Selection of punishment: Determination of imprisonment with labor" is a clerical error and thus, it is corrected ex officio as it is corrected ex officio).