2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

Family members and branch members of the defendant want the defendant's wife.

On the other hand, the crime of drinking driving is a crime that may inflict harm on the lives, bodies, and property of the citizens using the road as well as their own.

The defendant is driving under the influence of alcohol with 0.131% alcohol concentration in blood. In light of the blood alcohol concentration level in the blood, the crime quality is not less than that.

On January 24, 2014, the Defendant has been punished five times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, including a previous conviction who was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

In light of all the above circumstances, the lower court appears to have sentenced the lowest sentence of statutory punishment to the Defendant through reduction of the amount of punishment, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the lower court after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In full view of all the above circumstances and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and theories, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

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.