The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Drinking driving is a crime that may inflict a significant harm on an unspecified person, and its social risk is considerably high.

The defendant had a record of being punished twice by a fine due to drinking, and driving again without being aware of the fact that he was under suspension of the execution of punishment due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is 0.134% high.

The court below appears to have determined the punishment by fully considering the circumstances in which the above suspended sentence should be revoked and the sentence should be reinstated, and there is no new change in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentence of the court below in the court below.

In addition, if the Defendant’s age and the process of driving drinking of this case and all the factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments are considered comprehensively, the sentence imposed by the lower court is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, 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.