2. The following can be considered as circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s driving distance at the time of the instant crime is short and does not lead to traffic accidents; (b) the Defendant is receiving treatment of alcohol survival in order to prevent recidivism while committing the instant crime; and (c) the need to consider equity in cases where the Defendant simultaneously ruled with the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act as stated in the lower judgment, which became final and conclusive on November 8, 2019.

However, from November 2018 to November 1, 2018, the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime, including the instant crime, for a period of not less than one year, and driven without a license twice.

Despite repeated wife, it has been tried to commit the crime of this case while driving and driving without a license.

At the time of the instant crime, the blood alcohol concentration level is not lower.

The lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, including the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, in full view of the favorable or unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal records, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, it does not seem that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

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.