The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s frequent drinking, such as divorce, led to the instant crime by frequent drinking, and the Defendant’s work for 22 years at a D plant, and the final judgment of imprisonment becomes final and conclusive, and the Defendant’s dismissal is inevitable, and the Defendant’s act of not re-offending, such as scrapping of the vehicle driven by the Defendant, is likely to go against the depth and not to repeat the crime. In light of the above, the punishment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Taking into account the circumstances as alleged by the Defendant, the instant crime is deemed to have driven a vehicle without a driver's license while under the influence of 0.129% of blood alcohol concentration, and its drinking level is relatively high and its case cannot be deemed to be light. The drinking driving is a crime that may cause damage not only to an individual but also to other unspecified life and property, and needs to be strictly eradicated by reflecting the purpose of the revision of the Road Traffic Act. In the past, the Defendant has been punished several times (five times of fine) due to the same or similar crimes such as the violation of the Road Traffic Act or the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving). Furthermore, the lower court’s judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 28, 201 by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence for six months due to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving); and (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence and its remaining sentence after the Defendant’s non-driving driving of this case.