2. The judgment is relatively short of the distance in which the Defendant driven under drinking, the fact that the Defendant has a family member to support the instant crime, and that the Defendant reflects the mistake while recognizing the instant crime.

However, considering the fact that the social harm of drinking driving is serious and the statutory punishment is increased at the request of the people demanding the strengthening of punishment, it is necessary to punish the crime of drinking driving strictly.

At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was very high as 0.371%, and the Defendant had been punished twice due to drunk driving, and in particular, even if he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on December 27, 2018 due to drunk driving, he/she committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period.

In full view of the above circumstances, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of crime, and circumstances after the commission of crime, etc., as well as all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, and the fact that there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, it cannot be deemed unfair

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.