2. The judgment of the defendant does not repeat the crime of this case against the mistake of the crime of this case.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than that of probation for the same crime.

The blood alcohol concentration of the crime of drunk driving in this case is not relatively high than 0.080%, and the distance of driving is not 10 meters.

The crime of this case is also acknowledged in the relation of concurrent crimes between the crime for which the judgment of the court below became final and the crime of this case has become concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, drinking driving is a serious crime that may endanger the life and body of himself/herself and others, and there is a need to strictly punish the defendant by committing the crime of this case even though he/she had the same criminal record.

The crime of this case is likely to be committed while driving under the influence of alcohol without a license, and the nature of the crime is also hot.

The sentence of the lower court appears to have determined the sentence considering all favorable circumstances to the Defendant as seen earlier, and there are no new changes in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the lower court.

In addition, considering the equity of punishment with similar cases, the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

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.