2. In light of the judgment, there are some extenuating circumstances to take into account the circumstances of the instant crime, and the risk of driving without a drinking or non-licensed license is realized and thus no traffic accident occurs. The Defendant acknowledges and seriously reflects all his/her mistake, and the Defendant’s family members want to take the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant, etc., which are relatively clear social ties, and the Defendant’s equity should be taken into account when the Defendant is sentenced simultaneously with the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (a punishment: 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) before and after the judgment became final and conclusive (a punishment: 6 months of suspension of execution)

On the other hand, however, the defendant has a record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and in particular, the defendant has been punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving driving) and committed a second offense only three days, and there is a disadvantage to the defendant. In full view of the defendant's family relation, economic circumstances, age, health, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment seems to be within the reasonable and appropriate scope, and it does not seem unfair due to excessive reason.

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