도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The gist of the defendant's grounds for appeal is that the defendant's punishment for six months sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is against himself, must support his family, the fact that the defendant suffers from disease such as livering, food and beer, the driving of this case for parking and the distance of driving of this case is only 10 meters, and where the defendant is sentenced to punishment for this case, the suspended imprisonment for eight months should be additionally recovered.
In light of the circumstances alleged by the defendant, it is difficult to believe this part of the defendant's statement as it is because it is not consistent with the statement about driving circumstances, such as ① the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender at the time when he was arrested as a flagrant offender, ② the defendant was 8 times, and among them, eight times the number of times the defendant was punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, ③ the defendant committed the crime of this case without being familiar with the period of suspension of execution, ④ the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.23% of the period of suspension of execution, ④ the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 0.2% of the period of suspension of execution, ④ the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was 10% of the period of suspension of execution, ⑤ the defendant's statement about driving circumstances, such as the vehicle in this case parked in front of his house, which was parked in the house, and the defendant's statement about driving circumstances.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit.