The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The judgment of the court below takes into account the following factors: (a) the defendant led the crime of this case to the crime of this case; (b) the distance operated under the influence of alcohol is about 10 meters; and (c) the defendant's family members and employees have promised to lead the defendant; (b) the defendant repeated the drinking of this case once suspended sentence due to the drinking driving; (c) the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time is high 0.163%; and (d) the current Road Traffic Act provides that the person who violated the prohibition provision of drinking driving shall be punished more strictly in the case of driving again for the purpose of preventing the drunk driving threatening to the safety of the road traffic and ensuring the awareness of it; and (d) the court below's decision to punish the person who violated the prohibition provision of drinking alcohol again more strictly in the case of driving under the influence of alcohol, taking into account the favorable circumstances of the defendant prior to the decision of the court below's decision to punish the amount of punishment to the minimum limit of the punishment; and (e) the defendant's age, character, family relationship, motive, motive and circumstances after the crime.

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, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the part of the criminal records of the lower judgment on December 11, 2002, which was stated in the first head, is punishable by a fine of KRW 700,000,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daegu District Court on December 11, 2002, the same court on December 2, 2003, which was punished by a fine of KRW 3 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and on March 27, 2006, the same court on March 27, 200.