The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant was made in the trial, and the crime of interference with business is divided and reflected, and that the defendant operated a motor vehicle under the state of unauthorized License only about 500 meters.

However, drinking driving is a very dangerous crime that may cause unexpected conduct to the life and family of himself/herself, as well as other persons by raising the possibility of traffic accidents, and thus requires strict punishment, and the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to the same kind of crime as the victim G of the crime interfering with the business of this case. Furthermore, the time when the defendant committed the crime of interference with the business of this case ( April 23, 2019) was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million against the defendant in the first instance judgment on the crime of interference with the business of this case against the victim of this case on August 6, 2018.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2018Da2361 Decided April 24, 2019 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018DaDa2361, Apr. 24, 2019). Before the date of the sentence (see, 2019) (200DaDa42361, Apr. 24, 201), the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) from the previous Jeju District Court’s military mountain support on Nov. 7, 2013; and the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act (i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act) and (ii) the Defendant appears to have been subject to criminal punishment without prison labor for the crimes of violating the Road Traffic Act (i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for a repeated crime committed on May 13, 2017).