2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime and reflects the wrongness of the defendant, the fact that the defendant disposed of a passenger car after the crime, the defendant's economic situation is difficult, the family members to support the defendant, and the family members of the defendant want to support the defendant.

However, on October 28, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) with a high-level district court order on March 28, 2008. On October 13, 2010, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving).

In addition, on July 10, 2013, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), but he again committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years.

The crime of this case is the sixth drinking driving crime since 2000.

The alcohol concentration in the blood transfusion of the instant crime is not lower than 0.136%, and the distance of the Defendant’s driving is also short.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.