2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and recognized the circumstances against which the defendant did not repeat the crime of this case, such as disposing of the error of this case, etc.

However, social harm caused by drinking driving is very serious and there is a great need to punish it.

In the past, the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime such as the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, as well as the defendant has driven without a license under the influence of alcohol during the period of suspension of the execution of his/her duties, it cannot avoid punishment corresponding to his/her responsibility.

The lower court also considered the elements of sentencing favorable to the Defendant as seen earlier, and determined the Defendant’s punishment after discretionary mitigation, and there is no change in sentencing conditions that may be specially considered in the trial compared with the lower court.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, blood alcohol concentration (0.16%) at the time of the instant case, the distance of drunk driving without license, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.