2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and did not repeat the instant car by disclosing the intention to sell the instant car in the first instance, and that there was no additional traffic accident due to drinking and driving without a license, and that the property damage caused by the instant fraud was not severe, are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant had a high level of alcohol level during four times of driving of the instant drinking and non-licensed driving, and the distance of his driving is reasonable, as well as driving of a motor vehicle without mandatory insurance. The crime of this case has a high risk of traffic caused by the defendant.

In full view of the legislative purport of the Road Traffic Act that intends to thoroughly prevent the recurrence of drinking, such as the fact that many victims due to the fraud were punished by the defendant, and the damage has not yet been recovered until now, and that the defendant was punished 16 times including five times of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crimes for which 6 months have not passed since driving of drinking was completed, and that a person who violated the prohibition provisions on the prohibition on the driving of drinking at least two times again, once again drives drinking again, it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is unfair because of excessive punishment is imposed, taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, sex, family environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.