2. The fact that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession of criminal facts and reflects on the driving, and that the distance of driving seems to be relatively short is favorable to the defendant.

However, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is very high at 0.126%; the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for six months in 208, three years in the suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor for a non-licensed driving in 2013, three years in 2014, and six months in the suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor for a non-licensed driving in 2014; the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the completion of the execution of the said imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime; the Defendant did not have any special change in the trial; and the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive for the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime were committed, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, taking full account of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, motive for the crime, and conditions before and after the crime.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act on the grounds that it is obvious that “Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act” is an error of “Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act,” and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.