2. The lower court, after June 1, 2006, rendered a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the same kind of crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant had been punished by a fine on three occasions by driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing to measure drinking once more than twice; (b) the Defendant committed the same crime; (c) the disadvantageous circumstances such as the high drinking level; (d) the Defendant’s mistake; (e) the Defendant chilled in depth; (e) support the preparation for employment and study of his/her children through his/her public office life; and (e) favorable circumstances such as the support of his/her mother, and other circumstances of the sentencing

On the other hand, the crime of this case was driven under the influence of alcohol by the defendant at the height of 0.229%, and at the time, the defendant caused an accident that sees the telegraph on the road due to such drinking conditions, and the risk of the crime of this case was considerably high to the extent that it does not cause an accident that may cause human life damage.

The defendant has been sentenced to the punishment of 8 times in total due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and among them, there has been three times of punishment only after 2006 as stated by the court below.

In full view of these circumstances and statutory punishment, the determination of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of the discretion granted to the lower court, and there is no change in circumstances that are deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the lower court as it is.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's argument during the sentencing.

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.