2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime and divided the wrong facts.

It is difficult for the Defendant to take into account the circumstances leading to the instant crime under the influence of drinking while engaging in labor.

There are children who are responsible for supporting the accused.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant was punished by a fine (seven times) and a suspended sentence of imprisonment (two times) with prison labor due to a crime of drinking driving or unlicensed driving.

In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended sentence on July 19, 2012 for the same crime, and was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime even during the said trial.

The blood alcohol concentration of this case is not lower than 0.11%.

In light of this, there is a need to punish the defendant strictly.

In full view of these circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to be unfair because the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.