2. The lower court determined that the lower court, as a sentence, selected the lower limit of the applicable sentencing, which was discretionary mitigation.

In consideration of the defendant's reflectivity, driving distance, traffic accident failure, etc., the punishment was determined in consideration of the same criminal records, blood alcohol concentration level, etc.

Although the Defendant said that he would not drive a drinking again, such as drinking treatment, vehicle disposal, etc., such circumstances have already been reflected in the lower court.

Even if this court re-examines the sentencing factors, the determination of the original sentence is unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.