All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for up to eight months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too minor or unreasonable.

2. We examine both the prosecutor and the defendant's grounds for appeal and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing.

Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine twice as a result of the crime of drinking alcohol driving, imprisonment with labor, and imprisonment with labor twice.

The blood alcohol concentration at the time of the defendant's driving reaches 0.184% and is relatively high.

Even after receiving a request for attendance from the court on several occasions, the defendant is not in good condition after committing a crime because he/she refuses to comply with a request for attendance with doping.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant acknowledges the crime up to the trial.

Although there are many criminal records for the defendant, the crime of this case is committed after about six years from the last day of the same kind of crime.

In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions for the pleadings and the sentencing recorded in the records of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and methods of the offense, and the circumstances after the offense, etc., the above sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor and the defendant's above arguments are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant are without merit. It

[However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below shall be corrected ex officio, on the ground that the "Road Traffic Act" of the "Article 25(1) of the Act on Criminal Procedure" is the "Road Traffic Act (wholly amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018)" in the application column of the law of the court below.