2. The Defendant had already been punished for a fine on three occasions due to a drunk driving, and around February 2013, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and two years prior to the suspended sentence.

Nevertheless, on March 18, 2014 during the grace period, the Defendant was found to have been under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.127%, and furthermore, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol level of 0.112% on March 31, 2014, and was under the influence of alcohol again on March 31, 2014.

In the event of an accident, two victims suffered injury.

As such, since the punishment of the defendant has not been eradicated, it is inevitable to strictly punish the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, method, and consequence leading to the instant crime, as well as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant’s mistake was seriously against himself/herself and was agreed with one of the victims in the first instance trial.

Even if the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that the sentence is unreasonable.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since there is an obvious clerical error in the application column of the law among the judgment below, "each choice of imprisonment" in the application of the law in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall be changed to "the imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act" and "Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be changed to "Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (2) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act", respectively.