2. Prior to the instant crime, the Defendant had been punished for drunk driving four times prior to the instant crime, and the two times among them was sentenced to imprisonment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while making a relatively high level of blood alcohol content 0.118%, was driving under the influence of alcohol in this case, and as a result, there was an accident, such as receiving the outer wall of the restaurant.

Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant shall be held liable with severe responsibility.

In light of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable and too unreasonable. However, the lower court’s punishment is deemed inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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

[However, in the same court of July 23, 2010, "eight months of imprisonment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)" in Part 2 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below which clearly states a clerical error shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure as "four months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)" in the same court of July 23, 2010.