2. The reasons for sentencing revealed by the lower court are as follows.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime and divided his mistake, and the distance of drinking driving itself is relatively short.

The defendant's wife and mother who suffered vertebrates, etc. should support the defendant's wife and mother, such as suffering from urine disease, etc., and for this reason, the sons of the defendant want to support the defendant's wife.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the Defendant was punished by a fine on three occasions for a crime of drinking alcohol in March 2002, March 2006, and May 2006, respectively. The Defendant was punished by a fine on three occasions. On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (a crime of drinking alcohol) on February 8, 2007 at the Young-gu District Court's Young-dong branch, which committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (a crime of drinking alcohol). < Amended by Act No. 500, Feb. 8, 2007; Act No. 0. 0.1135, Dec. 26, 2008; Act No. 0.2350, Oct. 10, 2013>

In addition, the above suspended sentence became final and conclusive on October 18, 2013, and was in the period of suspended sentence.

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed another crime of drinking alcohol again without being able to commit the instant crime, and the blood alcohol concentration itself was considerably high by 0.108%.

In light of the fact that the defendant had been punished several times due to the crime of drunk driving, but again has repeatedly reduced the crime of drunk driving due to the blood alcohol concentration of high value, it seems that there is little intention to observe traffic regulations in the future and that the risk of recidivism is high.

The above defendant is disadvantageous to the defendant.