2. There is no special change in circumstances in the trial about sentencing.

The lower court already determined the punishment by fully taking into account all the circumstances that the Defendant asserts as the grounds for appeal.

In particular, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime despite the history of punishment for drinking driving multiple times; and (b) the blood alcohol concentration level was considerably high; and (c) various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the sentencing grounds and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and the background of the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since the "Road Traffic Act" in Part 8 of the second half of the judgment of the court below is apparent to be a clerical error by mistake, it shall be based on Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure and shall be corrected ex officio as "the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018)".