The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. From among the instant crimes, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act among the crimes of this case by discretionary determination is a crime falling under Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the statutory penalty is stipulated as imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than three years, or a fine not less than five million won but not more than ten million won.

The court below selected the imprisonment and sentenced the imprisonment for eight months (two years).

However, since the punishment of the instant crime was imposed for more than one year, the court below should have sentenced the above punishment to the Defendant who did not have any legal grounds for mitigation, but sentenced the punishment beyond the scope of the punishment without omitting it, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as follows: (a) the facts charged in the second sentence “0.102%” as “0.097%”; and (b) according to the statement of the facts charged, the blood alcohol concentration in the instant case is 0.097%; and (c) so, the facts charged are modified to the extent that it is not disadvantageous to the Defendant’s defense right.

Except for the judgment below, since each corresponding column of the court below is the same, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 3(1), proviso of Article 3(2)8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (the point of injury by occupational negligence).