2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in full consideration of the various favorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In particular, the defendant is working as the secretary general of C, manages the employees, and takes charge of affairs, and the defendant wants to exempt or reduce community service and lecture attendance order on the ground that there is a risk of loss of work if absent from work for the implementation of community service and lecture attendance order.

However, considering various sentencing conditions, the lower court appears to have sentenced to a suspended sentence on the premise that the community service order, etc. is implemented. However, it is not impossible for the lower court to implement the order to the extent that it does not interfere with the livelihood, since the difficulty or inconvenience arising in the course of implementing the order may be borne by the Defendant, and the community service order, etc. may be implemented through weekends, holidays, etc.,

In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the record of the crime in this case, it is not deemed that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

However, the judgment of the court below No. 16 is "the point of drinking driving under Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act".