2. The judgment of the court below is acknowledged that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and is against his mistake. However, each of the crimes of this case is deemed to have driven a motor vehicle under the influence of 0.108% alcohol concentration in blood, which the defendant had been subject to punishment several times for the same crime before, and there is no urgent or inevitable circumstance that the defendant should drive in the state of drinking. The driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious crime that causes harm to the life and body of others as well as the driver. The current Road Traffic Act provides that the driver shall be punished more strictly if the defendant violated the prohibition clause of driving under the influence of alcohol twice or more for the purpose of preventing the driving under the influence of alcohol from threatening the safety of road traffic, and the court below seems to have been sentenced to a fine more reduced than the summary order in consideration of various circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances at the same time, the defendant's age, environment, family relation, circumstances, etc. after the crime of this case, and the circumstances that led to the sentencing of this case are inappropriate after considering various circumstances.

Therefore, 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.