The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The judgment of the Defendant committed the instant crime without being sentenced to one time of the suspended sentence of imprisonment and three times of fines due to the same crime, and committed the instant crime on January 10, 2019, even though he was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence on October 10, 2019.

However, from the year 2013 to the day of the instant crime, the Defendant did not have any criminal record subject to punishment for the same crime; the Defendant recognized the instant crime; there are extenuating circumstances to consider the circumstances; the blood alcohol content does not relatively high; and the result of the instant traffic accident did not occur; the Defendant is detained for a considerable period of time and seems to have de facto divided his mistake; and the Defendant seems to not repeat again; and it is hard to say that he does not repeat again, taking into account all the sentencing conditions of the instant case, including age, career, character, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime; the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

(1) The defendant and his defense counsel asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, but also argued that there was no intention to drive under the influence of alcohol after the occurrence of an action. The above argument is interpreted as the absence of a conclusive intention to drive under the influence of alcohol, and there is no assertion of mistake of facts. Even if the defendant alleged a mistake of facts, considering the amount of drinking under the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the amount of drinking alcohol, the distance between the final drinking time and the driving time of this case, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration, and the defendant's situation at the time of regulating the driving under the influence of alcohol, at least it is sufficiently recognized that there was an incomplete intention to drive under the influence of alcohol, so the defendant and his defense counsel's above assertion is without merit