The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime and made a mistake contrary to the mistake; (b) the police officer sent money to the damaged police officer by depositing a certain amount of money; (c) the degree of injury to the victimized police officer; and (d) the Defendant supports the spouse by marriage; and (c) the Defendant is living in good faith by registering a personal business operator; and (d) the sentence (a) imposed by the lower court (a two-year imprisonment, three-year probation, three-year probation, and two hundred-hour community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant not only driven under the influence of alcohol concentration (0.120%) in blood alcohol content (0.120%) that meets the criteria for revoking driver’s license, but also sustained injury by a police officer by driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol control in a situation where a police officer takes a measurement of alcohol in front of the driver’s license immediately before the driver’s seat, thereby leading the police officer to the vehicle in order to avoid drinking control.

Considering the risk of drinking driving and the gravity of crime, it is necessary to strictize the defendant's act.

Moreover, even though the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine due to drinking driving in 2001 and 2002, the Defendant came to commit each of the crimes in this case.

It is not recognized that the circumstances of the drinking driving of the defendant are particularly considered.

Furthermore, the sentencing factors asserted by the Defendant have already been considered by the lower court in determining the sentence against the Defendant, and there is no change in the special sentencing conditions after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable even if considering the various sentencing factors asserted as the grounds for appeal by the Defendant.

Therefore, it is true.