The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant both recognized and reflected the instant crime, and the fact that the instant case was not serious in light of the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration and driving distance at the time of the instant crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, considering the above favorable circumstances, the court below seems to have already determined a sentence by discretionary mitigation. The current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drunk driving at least twice in order to prevent a drunk driving that threatens the safety of road traffic and to realize awareness of it, shall be punished more severe in the event that a person drives under the prohibition clause on drunk driving is again under the influence of alcohol driving at least twice. The defendant has the record of punishment five times (three times a fine and two times a suspended sentence) prior to the crime in this case. In particular, the defendant committed the crime in this case because he did not go against the suspended sentence due to a drunk driving, it is disadvantageous circumstances such as the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, relation, character and behavior, environment, means and method of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime in this case, etc., and thus, it cannot be determined that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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