2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

The distance of drinking driving is a relatively short range of 200 meters.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant who was in the probation period due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), and it is not good that the crime was committed.

The defendant has already been a criminal record of the same kind in several times.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

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.