The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The circumstances favorable to the defendant may be considered in light of the following: (a) the fact that the defendant has divided his wrong and reflected his depth and again would not drive under the influence of alcohol; (b) the detention of his family members seems to make it difficult to maintain their livelihood due to the detention of the defendant; and (c) the mother of the defendant and his spouse have maintained their social ties, such as complaining of the defendant's carbon sources.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished four times since 2008 while driving under the influence of alcohol and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment in 2013.

In addition, the defendant has been punished for the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving).

Furthermore, the defendant was under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in February 2016.

Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.114%.

In light of this point, it is necessary to punish the defendant accordingly.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it has no reason to appeal.