2. Determination of the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and the place of driving is a parking lot, and the distance of driving is approximately five meters, etc.

However, the Defendant was not only five times subject to criminal punishment due to the same crime, but also committed the instant crime even though he had had the record of being subject to suspended execution twice or more prior to the instant crime.

The alcohol concentration in blood is considerably high 0.22%.

Although the Defendant was driving a vehicle at a construction site by hearing the horses to move the vehicle to another place while drinking the same as the fluor fee at the construction site, it was easy for the Defendant to do so.

However, the re-driving of a motor vehicle without taking such measures as putting an acting driver on it, is no longer necessary to put him/her on tolerance without any awareness of the crime of drinking driving.

Due to these acts of the defendant, the third party is likely to suffer damage in good faith and there is a high social risk.

In addition, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, background of the crime, mode of crime, and circumstances after the crime; and (b) all of the sentencing circumstances revealed in the instant records and theories.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.