2. The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) made it difficult for the Defendant to recognize the Defendant to commit the instant crime; (c) make it difficult to drive drinking again; (d) support the old and female children with poor health conditions due to dementia, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s family and branch members who want to grow up with the Defendant’s prior wife.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant drives a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.10%, and the nature of the crime is not less severe, and driving under the influence of alcohol can infringe on the life, body, etc. of another person as well as himself/herself, and thus it is necessary to strictly punish the crime of this case. The defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the history of criminal punishment several times due to driving under the influence of alcohol, and the driving distance of alcohol is considerably long to about 20km, etc. that are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable, and thus, 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.