2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The legislators amended the Road Traffic Act on December 24, 2018 by taking into account the social damage caused by drunk driving and the gravity of the offense, etc., and Article 148-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which applies to the Defendant, provides that a person who has violated the prohibition provisions on drunk driving at least twice, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years, or by a fine not less than ten million won but not more than twenty million won.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized his responsibility for the instant crime; (b) the occurrence of an accident while driving under the influence of alcohol did not occur; (c) the blood alcohol level was high at the time of the instant crime; (d) the Defendant appeared to have been driving under the influence of the signal to the extent that he was diving; and (c) the risk of causing a traffic accident was also high; (d) the Defendant had the record of having received one-time summary order as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, background of the crime, driving distance, and circumstances after the crime; and (e) other various circumstances, which are the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, driving background, driving distance, etc., the lower court’

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.