The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. The conclusion that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against the nature of the crime, and that the Defendant did not repeat the crime.

The disposal of the vehicle is a favorable situation.

However, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant driven a vehicle in order to move without any choice upon the request of another driver who was sentenced to prompt deduction of parked vehicle in the same kind of crime in 2004, 2010, and 3 times in 2014, that the blood alcohol concentration level was almost 0.221% at the time of enforcement, and that the blood alcohol concentration level was almost 0.214% at the time of enforcement in 2014.

However, according to the Defendant’s statement and investigation report of the police, the Defendant appears to have driven a vehicle in order to drink and build the house of his parents in H, and thus, the Defendant seems to have driven the vehicle (Evidence Nos. 11, 12, 25 of the evidence record, and the Defendant did not talk about the mobile parking at the police, and there was no person who caused or caused the Defendant to drive the vehicle while driving the vehicle.

In light of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that make different from the lower court’s sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.