2. The Defendant was committing a crime, against the wrongness, and the Defendant did not repeat again while disposing of the vehicle used for committing the crime.

However, the defendant has already been punished five times or more due to drinking, and in particular, during the suspension period of imprisonment due to a crime, it is found that the driving of drinking has been discovered by causing an accident that is caused by the parking lot breaker while driving again while driving again during the suspension period of imprisonment with prison labor due to a crime. Nevertheless, without being familiar, repeated driving of drinking only for two months, and the degree of criticism is high in that the blood alcohol level at the time of each crime is 0.187% and 0.296%.

In light of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.