2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the depth thereof, and that the alcohol content in blood was not raised by 0.072%, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the court below seems to have already determined a punishment in consideration of the above favorable circumstances, and the current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking at least twice in order to prevent the driving of drinking which 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 drinking again at least twice. The defendant has the history of punishing five times due to drinking (two times a punishment, two times a sentence, two times a suspended sentence, one time a suspended sentence) prior to the crime of this case, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without being guilty even during the period of repeated offense due to drinking, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, sexual intercourse, environment, means and method of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the court below is too undue and too unfair in light of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, and sex, etc.

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.