Judgment

The fact that the defendant is recognized as committing the crime of this case and is against the law is favorable.

However, the defendant's crime of this case was driven by drinking by the defendant

Despite the fact that there are reasonable grounds to determine a person who has received a request for measurement of drinking from a police officer, it is necessary to strictly punish him/her to effectively regulate the driving of drinking and to punish him/her corresponding to his/her criminal liability. The Defendant appears to have realized traffic risks caused by driving of drinking, such as driving beyond the central line, driving, etc. while under the influence of alcohol after drinking two or more kinds of alcohol prior to the crime of this case, and the Defendant has been punished several times due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and in particular, the Defendant committed the crime of this case even though he/she was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) around 2016.

Considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to see that the lower court's punishment is too unreasonable.

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

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for appeal by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.