The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years of suspended sentence in the month of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. There is no record that the Defendant recognized his mistake, reflects himself, and was punished in excess of the previous fine.

While a traffic accident occurred while driving under drinking, the victim did not have a big deal, and the victim expressed his/her intention that the victim would not wish to punish the defendant.

These circumstances can be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, it is necessary to strictly punish drinking driving because it is a very high risk of infringing on the life and body of others as well as himself.

Although the Defendant had had had been punished twice or more due to drinking, the Defendant had been driving twice again, and had been driving on an expressway with alcohol concentration of 0.169% while driving on the expressway while causing a traffic accident to another person.

The alcohol concentration at the time of driving was very high, the distance of driving under the influence of alcohol also exceeds 100 km, and there is no part to be considered in the circumstances in which the driving under the influence of alcohol was made.

Considering these disadvantageous circumstances, it is necessary to punish the defendant with severe punishment corresponding to his responsibility.

In addition, considering the motive and background of the instant crime, means and methods, circumstances before and after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the sentencing of the lower court, which has been postponed only the execution of imprisonment without any additional disposition, is deemed unfair as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is justified.

3. As such, 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 after pleading as follows.