2. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the purpose of the Road Traffic Act, where the defendant makes a drunk driving three times or more in spite of the fact that all of the crimes in this case were led to the confession of each of the crimes in this case, the distance between the defendant's blood alcohol level at 0.176% and 139% at the time of each of the crimes in this case is considerably high, the defendant scraped his vehicle while not driving under the influence of alcohol again, and the defendant is responsible for supporting the poor condition of the defendant's health. However, each of the crimes in this case is found to be unfair in light of the purpose of the Road Traffic Act, where the defendant makes a drunk driving three times or more, despite the fact that the defendant had been punished two times or more due to drunk driving, and it is difficult to expect that the defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of each of the crimes in this case is too high, and since it can not be seen that the defendant had an effect of punishing the above crimes in this case after being subject to punishment of unfair sentencing after considering the age of the defendant.

3. Conclusion.