2. The fact that the defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected in the judgment is favorable.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed since the defendant was driving under drinking and failed to comply with a police officer's request for measurement of drinking without any justifiable reason, and there are two times the records of punishment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and in particular, in 2013, the defendant did not have been aware of the fact that he committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 2013, and committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), and in full view of all other circumstances, including the balance of general punishment in the same and similar cases of the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is deemed to be proper

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices (see Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Small Quantity of 1. The judgment of the court below is obvious that the “Article 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act on the part of the application column of the Criminal Procedure Act” was omitted by mistake. Thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with