The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The following determination is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

The Defendant was punished 15 times, including imprisonment with prison labor for larceny and traffic-related crimes.

The crime of this case has not been committed during the period of repeated crime due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

At the time of drinking driving, alcohol concentration is very high to 0.261%.

On the other hand, the following conditions are favorable.

The Defendant led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.

The degree of injury caused by a traffic accident is relatively minor.

In the court below's decision, the victim I of the traffic accident and the victim I were fully agreed.

For the first time, 300,000 won was deposited for thief victim E.

In addition, in the case of the crime of this case, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee (a period of six months to two years) / [the scope of recommended punishment] / [the scope of recommended punishment] 2 crime (traffic) without any special sentencing factors (6 months to one year and six months) / [the scope of recommended punishment] 1 category (6 months to one year] mitigation area (6 months to one year after the injury), mitigation area (a person subject to special mitigation (including a person subject to special mitigation) / 1 year), 6 months in punishment (including efforts to recover damage), 3 years in relation to the relation of driving of the same kind of repeated crime, and 3 years in relation to the relation of traffic offense under the former part of the Sentencing Act (a period of two years to two years).

In full consideration of the above, since the sentence of the court below is somewhat unreasonable and unfair, the defendant's assertion is with merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.