The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentence (2,500,000 won) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are acknowledged, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of the crime in this case and reflects the mistake in depth, that the distance of the defendant's driving in the drinking condition is not less than 2 meters, and that the blood alcohol concentration level of the defendant's blood is not higher than 0.062%.

However, since the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol without a license, the defendant has the same criminal history as the defendant, and the defendant was a substitute engineer who intends to drink by moving to a place different from his/her daily driving after completing the primary drinking place, and the substitute engineer is driving a vehicle inevitably by installing a vehicle at the center of the road with the defendant and the motor vehicle due to charges. Therefore, there are circumstances to consider the circumstances of the crime of this case.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the investigation report on the police preparation (No. 9, 10th page of the evidence record), the defendant did not state to the control police officer at the time that he stated to the effect that he was "the proxy engineer was laid off on his own," and rather, "the driver was driving a car to the place where he was a proxy engineer," and "the driver was driving a drinking, even if he did so."

“In light of the fact that the statement to the effect that the instant crime was stated, there are extenuating circumstances as to the circumstances of the instant crime.

In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), and the favorable circumstances for the recognized defendant are favorable.