The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the fact that the Defendant recognized the mistake of the Defendant; (b) the traffic accident that caused physical and human damage by the instant crime did not actually occur; and (c) the fact that there is no past record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

However, the Defendant already committed the instant crime even though he had been subject to a fine on around 2008 and twice around 2018 due to the crime of drunk driving, and again committed the instant crime. In light of the social risk of the crime of drunk driving and the end of the crime, a strict punishment is required for the repeated crime of drunk driving.

In addition, the blood alcohol concentration level is very high to 0.215%, and the driving distance is not short, and in light of the process of detection, it seems that the risk of traffic accidents caused by the crime of this case was reasonable.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above unfavorable circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, details and details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment] Criminal facts and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court below and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Discretionary mitigation;