2. The judgment of the court below recognizes the crime of this case and reflects the defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment other than the crime of drinking at least twice in 2001 and 2006, and there is no record of criminal punishment other than the punishment imposed by the defendant due to the crime of injury at around 2006. While the defendant supports three children with his wife and his wife, the crime of this case is already under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.232% and has been punished two times due to the crime of drinking alcohol, and the number of drinking alcohol in this case has already been punished two times due to the crime of drinking alcohol in this case, and there is a high degree of the number of drinking alcohol in this case, and there is a traffic accident that damages another vehicle after the traffic signal at the time of this case, and there is no reason for imposing punishment more than 10% of imprisonment with prison labor and more than 30% of the total punishment after the revision of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the defendant's allegation that the crime of this case was made under the influence of drinking at least 10% of imprisonment and more than 10%.

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.