All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment with labor (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The crime of this case is committed against the Defendant, even though the Defendant committed the crime of this case after having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 2, 2017, for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant was a person who violated the provision on the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more, and driven a vehicle under the influence of 0.118% alcohol concentration in blood in the state of non-licenseing; (b) the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; and (c) the Defendant also committed the crime of this case in spite of having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 2

However, the circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case, the fact that there are family members to support the defendant, the fact that many of the defendants wanted to leave the defendant's wife against the defendant, and the defendant is also preventing the recidivism.

Considering the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the instant crime, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.