2. The fact that the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect the instant crime, and that the Defendant sold a vehicle to the effect that he/she would not drive under the influence of alcohol in the future is considered in sentencing.

However, the Defendant had already been sentenced to four times or more due to drinking alcohol driving. On December 17, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months due to his refusal to take a drinking alcohol test as in the instant case, and the execution of the sentence was completed on December 17, 2012, the Defendant again committed an act of refusing to take a drinking alcohol test in this case before the period of repeated crime was over, and the Defendant appears to have actually driven a long distance while driving the drinking, and the possibility that if the operation was not stopped due to such an accident, it cannot be ruled out that the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances, circumstances of environmental crimes, and behaviors, etc. were excessive and unreasonable. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.