The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of thirty million won.

except that this judgment.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six months and the fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the driving under the influence of alcohol is an offense that may cause damage not only to an individual, but also to another person's life and property, and requires strict punishment by reflecting the purpose of the revision of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is high, in the past, the defendant has been punished several times due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act or a violation of the Road Traffic Act (one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment and five times a fine) in the past. In particular, on May 20, 2014, the Changwon District Court was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 8 months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment and five times a fine) and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2014, and each of the crimes of this case in the pending trial were committed against the defendant.

However, in full view of all the circumstances that are favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of each of the crimes in this case and the fact that each of the crimes in this case constitutes a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the relation between the crime in this case and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be considered in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. The defendant is in the position to support the baby and the two children who are living alone with the disabled in class 4 of the disability, and the defendant disposes of the vehicle and does not repeat again, and other character, character and environment of the defendant, the background and result of each of the crimes in this case, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the above argument by the court below is unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and therefore, it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.