2. We can take account of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided the wrong facts, and again, he did not drive a drinking without obtaining a license.

However, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant is highly likely to drive under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.152% high, thereby committing the instant crime.

Although the Defendant had already been punished several times due to drinking driving or driving without a license (two times a suspended sentence of imprisonment, five times a fine), the Defendant committed the instant crime, which is the same kind of crime without any genuine reflect, and it is inevitable for the Defendant to seriously lack compliance awareness and efforts to prevent recidivism.

Meanwhile, taking into account the favorable circumstances in favor of the defendant, the court below sentenced the maximum sentence of imprisonment by reducing the amount of imprisonment with labor for the crime of the Road Traffic Act in this case.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

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