The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below shall be added at the end of the crime.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence (five million won penalty) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant did not cause any harm to human life or material damage caused by driving under the influence of alcohol.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the defendant without a driver's license under the influence of 0.078% of alcohol level in the blood without a driver's license, and the alcohol level in the blood is not low. The defendant was at risk of causing a serious accident to occur while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and in contact with the criminal. The defendant also committed a traffic accident under the influence of breath while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The defendant was punished three times due to a drunk driving, six times due to a driver's license without a driver's license, and other traffic-related crimes are deemed to have little awareness of compliance with the traffic laws and regulations, such as the fact that the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, the motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, and all other circumstances after the crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, who violated the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions in the end of the crime of the lower judgment, and it is apparent that “the Defendant, who thereby, violated the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, was omitted.