2. The court below determined the defendant's punishment by taking into account (i) the defendant's unfavorable circumstances, (ii) the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a total of three times a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., a violation of the Road Traffic Act (e., a refusal of a measurement of drinking), and (iii) the fact that the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the crime of this case was high to 0.184%; (iii) the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the crime of this case was high to 0.184%; and (iv) the defendant's perception of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake; and (v) the fact that the defendant has a child to support the defendant, taking into account all of the sentencing conditions set forth in the arguments of this case

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing have already been sufficiently considered in the process of determining the punishment as above and there is no other special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too large.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. 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 groundless.