2. The instant crime is found to have been committed by the Defendant while driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.303% on the new wall. In light of the purpose of the Road Traffic Act that is designed to strictly prohibit driving under the influence of alcohol that threatens the safety of road traffic as well as the high level of drinking water.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., including the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the crime of running a motor vehicle in drinking condition in 2010, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years) in the past, the lower court’s sentencing, which had imposed an order to suspend the execution of imprisonment with prison labor on the Defendant and to attend the compliance driving lecture, cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s sentence, which had already been suspended, imposed an order to attend the probation and compliance driving lecture on the Defendant, 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.