2. The lower court, under the favorable circumstances to the Defendant, took into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant: (b) the Defendant took into account the depth of and reflects the instant crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime while waiting for a substitute driver at the time of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant appears to have a clear social relation; (b) the Defendant was under the unfavorable circumstances; (c) 4 times a fine due to drinking, including the previous criminal records indicated in the lower judgment; (d) one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment; and (e) one time a prison term of imprisonment with prison labor; (d) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking; (e) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking; (e) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking; and (e) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking; and (e) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking; and (e) the Defendant was under the influence of drinking; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, career, background and consequence of the instant crime, and all the changes in the sentence.

The lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing. As such, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.