2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime is against the nature of the Defendant, is economically difficult, is to support the mother and his/her dependent, has not caused any additional damage such as the traffic accident due to the instant crime, and there is no record of criminal punishment since 2010.

However, the revised Road Traffic Act strengthened criminal punishment by raising the statutory punishment for a serious crime that may endanger the life and body of himself/herself and others. The crime of this case is serious in light of the degree of drinking alcohol by the defendant while under the influence of alcohol 0.203% and the risk of drunk driving, and it does not seem that there was an imminent or inevitable circumstance that the defendant should drive in the state of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, there was a history of criminal punishment for several times, and there was a history of criminal punishment for the same crime, and there was a history of criminal punishment for the same crime. Nevertheless, the court below, considering the above favorable circumstances in regard to the defendant, and considering the defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and various circumstances that form the conditions of punishment as shown in the records, such as the punishment before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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.