The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Even when considering the fact that the defendant confessions the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime in the past (in particular, the defendant has been punished once a fine within five years, once a suspended sentence, once a sentence has been sentenced once) in the same kind of crime, the current Road Traffic Act provides that the person who has violated the prohibition clause two or more times in order to prevent the driving under the influence of the road traffic from undermining the safety of the traffic and to realize awareness of it, should be punished more strictly if he drives under the influence of alcohol again, there is a family member to support the defendant, and that his family member and branch members want to take the preference against the defendant, the defendant has no record of punishment several times for the same crime in the past, and the defendant has been punished several times during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime (in particular, there is a record of punishment once a fine within five years, once a suspended sentence, once a prison sentence, and there is no reason for the court below's decision to punish the defendant's excessive punishment, the defendant's age and reason for the punishment.

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

(However, since it is clear that the "car" in the 9th class among the facts charged in the original judgment is a clerical error in the "vehicle for Poter", it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on