2. The judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects the mistake.

The defendant is not subject to a punishment exceeding a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

There are three spouse, minor, etc. to support the defendant, and if the custody of the defendant is long, their economic difficulties are likely to occur.

However, the defendant has been punished several times due to the crime of drinking driving and driving without a license, and in particular, the same crime was repeated during the period of suspension of execution due to the crime of driving without a license.

At the time of crackdown, the blood alcohol concentration (0.167%) of the defendant is considerably high.

In light of the above circumstances, even if the defendant considered the circumstances that are favorable to the reasons for appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

Defendant’s assertion that the sentencing of the lower court is unreasonable is rejected.

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