2. The sentencing factors that can be considered for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and showed an attitude against the Defendant, and that he disposed of the instant vehicle after the instant case.

However, the current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking more than twice in order to prevent the driving of drinking that threatens the safety of road traffic and to realize the awareness of such a violation shall be punished more strictly in the event that the person drives the drinking again at least twice. Before the crime of this case was committed, the Defendant does not know about the fact that he was punished six times as the driving of drinking prior to the crime of this case (4 times a punishment, 4 times a sentence, 1 time a suspended sentence, 1 time a suspended sentence) and went into the crime of this case without being aware of the past. The Defendant is highly high in the blood alcohol concentration at 0.25% at the time of driving alcohol, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of this case is too unfair.

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.