The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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. In light of the fact that the court below, as stated in the grounds for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant, had a record of punishment several times including the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to the act of driving under the influence of alcohol, such as this case, without being aware of the defendant during the period of the same repeated crime, and the risk of recidivism such as driving under the influence of 0.175% of the 0.175% of the blood alcohol concentration, etc., it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to the punishment.

However, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, motive for committing the instant crime and the circumstances after committing the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

【Reason used in multi-level] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court, and summary of evidence, are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2 (1) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders who choose to impose imprisonment, for the crime, and for the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;