2. The judgment below seems to have sentenced the above punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant (the defendant's mistake is divided) and unfavorable circumstances (the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a crime such as drinking driving, etc., and committed the crime of drinking and driving without a license when he was under the suspended sentence).

In light of the aforementioned various sentencing grounds and the numerical value of blood alcohol level as seen above, the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, various circumstances revealed by the records, and other circumstances that the court below did not have any special circumstances or changes in circumstances that could change the punishment against the defendant, and the court below's punishment is the lowest punishment that can be sentenced within the applicable sentencing range after discretionary mitigation as long as imprisonment was chosen. In light of the fact that the defendant is supported by his family members and does not repeat again while disposing of his vehicle, the court below's punishment is appropriate, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion in the court below is beyond the limits of discretion or discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.