The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant (such as the fact that the Defendant acknowledges the crime of this case, the fact that the Defendant is in a position to support his spouse and children, etc.) and unfavorable circumstances (such as drinking driving, etc., that the Defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on June 23, 2016 due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., but again committed the crime of this case, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 8 months, the Defendant again committed the crime of this case, such as the possibility of criticism and the risk of recidivism, and driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious crime that is highly likely to bring another person's life as well as the driver, and the revised Road Traffic Act, which is a serious crime that strengthens criminal punishment by raising the statutory punishment on it, requires to impose criminal liability corresponding to the responsibility on the Defendant who appears to be in light of the legal order). After the sentence of the lower court, there is no special change in circumstances.

Furthermore, the above circumstances considered by the court below are considerably high in 0.248% and the defendant's blood alcohol level is likely to lead to a serious accident, such as causing a traffic accident that shocks the freight vehicles parked while driving in the state of contamination, etc. In addition, even if considering the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit.