2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as well as the mistake, and again, said defendant is not required to drive a drinking without a license.

However, the Defendant had already been punished several times due to drunk driving or unlicensed driving, and the Defendant appears to have significantly lacking compliance consciousness or efforts to prevent recidivism, such as committing the instant crime, which is the same kind of crime, without being aware of the fact that he was under trial due to drunk driving. Considering the fact that the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the instant crime is considerably high to 0.116%, it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendant.

On the other hand, the court below mitigated the imprisonment with prison labor for the instant crime in consideration of equity in cases where the instant crime and the instant judgment became final and conclusive, and subsequently sentenced the sentence by discretionary mitigation.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair as it is inappropriate. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

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.