2. There are circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and the driving distance is relatively short of 100 meters.

However, the defendant has a high possibility of criticism in that he is already subject to six times as well as criminal punishment for the same crime, and is not aware of during the period of probation for the same crime, and again commits the crime of this case.

Blood alcohol concentration is also 0.111% high.

Although the defendant's act seems to have been done under the influence of alcohol in the Han River Park that he had experienced a profound amount of collapse due to the problem of the delinquency of the children who are high school students, and that he did not have much distance from drinking in the Han River Park to drinking. However, this behavior of the defendant seems to be repeated without any awareness of the crime of drinking driving.

In addition, recently, social consensus has been formed that strong punishment for drunk driving is necessary as measures for high recidivism risk of drunk drivers and the seriousness of traffic accident damage caused by drunk driving.

Considering this point, it is necessary to punish the defendant with no longer tolerance and strict punishment.

In addition, considering the following factors, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, background of the crime, mode of crime, and circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing circumstances shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.