All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1: Of the first judgment of the lower court, the instant vehicle was driven by the person “W” and the Defendant did not drive the instant vehicle. Of the second judgment, the Defendant did not commit any crime as to obstruction of performance of official duties and damage to public goods, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the blood alcohol concentration was above 0.05%, which is the punishment standard for driving, since there is no possibility that the Defendant at the time of driving in light of the final drinking time and driving time, in view of the fact that the blood alcohol concentration might have risen. 2) A prosecutor: As to the driving of alcohol in the second judgment of the lower judgment, the Defendant constitutes a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act twice, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the said charges.

B. Defendant 1) Defendant: The sentence of the first instance judgment (7 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of probation, community service, and 120 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 2) Defendant and the prosecutor: Defendant and the prosecutor asserted that the Defendant’s imprisonment (8 months of imprisonment) of the second instance judgment is too uneasible to the prosecutor, and that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor changed the “0.1% of blood alcohol concentration” of the first judgment into “0.05% or more of blood alcohol concentration.” The applicable provisions of Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act to “Article 148-2(2)3 of the Road Traffic Act.” Of the second judgment, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to an amendment to an Act which changes the “0.164% of blood alcohol concentration” of the blood alcohol level into “0.05% or more of blood alcohol concentration.” The second judgment applied for amendments to an Act which changes into “0.05% or more of blood alcohol concentration” of the blood alcohol level to “0.05% or more of the blood alcohol concentration.” This judgment was

In addition, each appeal against the judgment of the court below against the defendant was consolidated at the trial court, and the facts constituting the crime are set forth in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.