2. The judgment shows the attitude of the defendant to make a confession of all the crimes of this case and to reflect his mistake, and the fact that the family and branch members of the defendant want to take the lead of the defendant, and that they want to take the lead of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, even before committing the instant crime, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine in 2006 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., drinking driving and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) for eight months of the suspension of execution, two years of the suspension of execution in 208, and two years of the suspension of execution in 208, and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment

As such, if the defendant was punished for driving three times of drinking, and if the defendant could not improve his character and behavior at all despite the suspension of execution and fine, it is inevitable for the defendant to make a strict punishment rather than for tolerance.

In addition, the act of the defendant's thinking that he is driving a drinking, driving in the state of drinking while being investigated, and refusing to take a drinking test can not be justified by any vindication.

In full view of these circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is heavy.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.