The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court (e., six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the fact that the Defendant had the record of being punished four times due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving, the fact that the Defendant drives a vehicle that was not covered by mandatory insurance at the same time only one month after he was released as a suspended sentence with respect to the crime, such as the most recent drinking driving and unlicensed driving, etc., is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's attitude to reflect in depth the crime of this case, the fact that in this case, where imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment is finalized, the defendant must serve a prison term which has been previously suspended, the occurrence of traffic accidents, the defendant does not have a prison term, the defendant's family members, workplace employees, and other persons who want the defendant's wife, etc., and the social ties of the defendant seems clear.

Examining the aforementioned circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again ruled as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, subparagraph 1 of Article 151 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 46 (2) 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.