A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was only a representative engineer and a person who was not involved in a dispute outside the vehicle and did not drive the vehicle.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on this part, and on the grounds that the lower court stated the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant in the judgment below.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing is a matter of refusing to measure drinking after the Defendant driven in a drinking state, and there are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances when examining the situation in which the proxy engineer and the vehicle stopped at the end of the trial while he/she was staying home while drinking alcohol and staying a substitute engineer.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant required blood measurement at the police station and denied the driving of a sudden drinking at the hospital and did not comply with the measurement, and that the Defendant repeated the criminal act despite the same kind of criminal record, the Defendant’s liability is not easy.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, family relation, living environment, details and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is adequate.

4. 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.