2. It is reasonable to place the Defendant with severe punishment according to the following circumstances: (a) although the distance of the Defendant’s driving is not long; (b) the Defendant sold a vehicle while not repeating the crime; and (c) the time of committing the instant crime, considering the fact that the blood alcohol concentration was considerable at the time; (c) the Defendant had a history of punishment, including punishment, due to the crime of drunk driving; and (d) the instant crime was committed during the period of repeated crime due to the above sentence.

In addition, taking into account all favorable circumstances asserted by the Defendant, the lower court sentenced the maximum sentence of imprisonment under law through discretionary mitigation, and in addition, comprehensively taking account of the fact that there is no special change in circumstances that the lower court and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are different from the lower court’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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