The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the degree of injury suffered by the victim of a special injury seems not to be relatively serious, and the above victim was not punished by the defendant under a mutual agreement with the above victim and the above victim have reached the court.

On the other hand, considering the fact that the statutory punishment for the drunk driving crime has been gradually aggravated due to the serious social harm caused continuously by the drunk driving and the changes in the legal sentiment of the general public, it is disadvantageous for the defendant, even though he continued the trial due to a special injury, he was driving under the influence of alcohol despite being in existence of the trial due to the special injury, and the blood alcohol concentration (0.246%) of the drunk driving was very high, and the fact that he operated the vehicle was in a state of driving only to the extent that he was unable to memory, and the defendant was punished two times of a fine due to the drunk driving.

Although the Defendant agreed with the victim of a special injury in this court, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned unfavorable circumstances, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, it is impossible to choose a sentence of imprisonment for the crime of the Road Traffic Act (the crime of special injury only exists) and the lower court’s sentence constitutes the lower limit of the statutory penalty applying discretionary mitigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed unreasonable for the lower court’s sentence to be too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.