The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, 80 hours of compliance driving, 160 hours of social service activities) is too unfasible and unreasonable;

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, even in the past, has a history of criminal punishment twice due to drinking driving, and even though he was subjected to a suspended sentence due to drinking water, etc. similar to the instant case, he again committed the instant crime, the need to prevent recidivism is very high through strict punishment.

In light of the fact that the victim still was punished against the defendant, the sentence of the court below that sentenced the suspension of execution on the defendant seems to be somewhat low.

However, it seems reasonable for the court below to respect the victim's injury in case it seems that the victim's injury is not very serious and for a considerable period of time has passed from the time of receiving the judgment of the past suspension of execution, civil damage is compensated by motor vehicle comprehensive insurance, the fact that the defendant has a family member to support the defendant, and all of the crimes of this case has reached the trial, the defendant's failure to repeat the crime of this case, and the defendant can expect to prevent a certain part of recidivism through incidental disposition such as probation, etc. On the other hand, if there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court's sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.