2. At the time of driving the instant drinking, the fact that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving the instant drinking was not higher than 0.10% is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The defendant has a history of criminal punishment on several occasions due to driving of drinking.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed even if the driver was sentenced to suspended sentence due to drinking driving, and was committed at the same time for not more than two months.

The Defendant’s assertion that the reason why he was allowed to drive a drinking or without a license is due to the fact that he was unable to walk the bridge, and thus, does not seem to seriously reflect the crime (the above circumstance cannot be a defense for driving drinking, and the circumstance that it was impossible to take other means of movement, such as a taxi or substitute driving, cannot be a defense for driving without a license, unless it appears that it was impossible to take other means of movement, such as a taxi or substitute driving.

Rather, in light of the defendant's defense, it seems that there is a high possibility that the defendant will repeat the crime of unlicensed driving after the case). Therefore, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the defendant's age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the crime, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.