2. Determination as follows: (a) the distance between the hours of driving under the influence of alcohol is relatively short; (b) the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol are not realized; (c) the offender committed a crime; (d) the offender committed a crime; and (e) the offender’s fault and wrong; and (e) the offender’s and his family members want not to commit a second offense; and (e) the social ties relationship is clear, such as the offender’s wife, which is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant had a record of being punished for suspension of execution due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents around September 2012, and committed the instant crime despite the fact that the Defendant had been subjected to juvenile protection due to the violation of the Traffic Act on the Road around October 2010 and the violation of the Traffic Act on the Road (unlicensed Driving). At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime, which was disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s economic situation, workplace, age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime. In full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s economic situation, workplace, age, family relation, family relation, etc., the lower court’s punishment seems to be deemed to be unfair and 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 on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.