The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendant does not want to punish the defendant by agreement with the victims is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, while driving a vehicle under drinking or unlicensed conditions, and was committed by three victims, including D, by shocking the vehicle driven by the victim D while driving the vehicle, and by destroying D, without immediately stopping the vehicle and failing to take necessary measures, and the nature of the crime is very bad.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was very high to 0.22%.

On April 10, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 months for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after-accident), etc., and was sentenced to criminal punishment on five occasions due to drinking driving and without a license for driving under the influence of alcohol. Among them, the Defendant has a record of punishing the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

In addition, the crime of this case was committed again during the suspended execution period due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act(SP).

Considering that such a defendant's drinking and repeated traffic accidents occur, it is deemed that the risk of recidivism is very high, so it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, and various sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be somewhat unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion is reasonable.

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.

Criminal facts

this Court recognizes the substance of the evidence and the summary thereof.