2. The Defendant had been sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence due to drinking driving in 2010, and was found to have been discovered by drinking driving on December 30, 2018 and requested a summary order.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, even before the lapse of two months, was driving in the state of unlicensed drinking, thereby committing the instant crime.

At the time of crime, the defendant's vehicle was listed on the apartment board, and the risk of the accident caused by the drinking driving of the defendant seems to have been considerable.

Considering these circumstances, it is necessary to ask the defendant for strict liability.

Although there are circumstances that may be taken into account such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant’s health condition is not good, and the Defendant’s family members and branch members want to take prior action, in full view of all the circumstances that form the conditions for the instant sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable and too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. In accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s decision to revise “Road Traffic Act” in the column of application of the Act No. 2 of the judgment of the court below as “Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018 and enforced on March 28, 2019)” and it is so decided