The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant’s crime of this case is subject to criticism in light of the fact that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was high at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol and that the Defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, in light of the following: (a) the defendant's time to commit the crime of this case and reflects the wrongness; (b) the distance of drinking driving of this case is relatively short; (c) equality in sentencing with the same or similar incidents; and (d) other conditions

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

【Reason used in multi-level] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court and summary of the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Determination of the sentence as ordered by comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions as seen earlier prior to the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (C) of the Criminal Act (i.e., discretionary mitigation).