2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and did not repeat the crime, and the circumstances in which the mistake is repented in depth are recognized.

Even if the distance of drinking driving is not much than about 500 meters, it can be considered as a factor of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

However, the social harm caused by drunk driving is very serious and there is a great need to punish the defendant. In particular, even though the court had been sentenced to the suspension of execution for six months due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury to Dangerous Driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act on June 12, 2018, the defendant cannot avoid the punishment corresponding to his/her responsibility in that he/she again renders a drunk driving during the suspension of the execution period.

In full view of the factors favorable to the defendant, the lower court sentenced six months of imprisonment, which is the lower limit of the statutory penalty of this case, and there is no change in sentencing conditions that may be specially considered in the trial compared to the lower court.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and the equality of sentencing in all similar cases as indicated in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.