The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant does not again stop driving a drinking alcohol crime;

In addition, it is not good that the basic livelihood security recipient is a beneficiary of basic livelihood security.

However, the crime of this case is a driving by the defendant under the influence of alcohol 0.102% in blood, and the quality of the crime is not weak.

The defendant has already been punished three times due to the crime of drinking driving.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and sentencing of similar cases as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable (the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won by the police). Meanwhile, even though a summary order was issued as a fine of two million won, the lower court argued that the Defendant sentenced to a fine of four million won.

However, according to the records, on January 26, 2017, the prosecutor filed a claim for a summary order with a fine of two million won with respect to the Defendant’s instant crime. However, on March 27, 2017, the Gwangju District Court issued a summary order of a fine of four million won with respect to the Defendant on March 27, 2017, which was served on the Defendant on March 30, 2017, and the Defendant is too heavy on April 3, 2017.

The facts alleged a formal trial, and the court below acknowledged that the above summary order amount was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million, which is the same as the above summary order amount, and according to the above facts, the judgment below was only sentenced to a fine of the same amount as the fine issued by the summary order, and violated the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration