The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment below seems to have sentenced the above punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant (the fact that the defendant is recognized to commit the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant must support the child suffering from delay) and unfavorable circumstances (the defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime such as drinking driving, etc., and even if the defendant was punished for imprisonment on two occasions in 2009 and 2010, the defendant again committed the crime of this case without being aware of the crime of this case. The possibility of criticism and the risk of repeating the crime of this case is large, the blood alcohol concentration level is high, and the blood alcohol concentration level is also high, and the revision of the Road Traffic Act is a serious crime in which the defendant can lead the life of a person who suffers from delay as well as his/her driver, and the revision of the Road Traffic Act strengthens criminal punishment by raising the statutory punishment for such crime).

In light of the aforementioned grounds for sentencing and the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, various circumstances after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the means and consequence, other circumstances revealed by the records, and the fact that the court below's imprisonment was the highest punishment that can be sentenced within the applicable sentencing range after discretionary mitigation as long as imprisonment was selected, the court below's sentencing is appropriate even if considering the defendant's assertion in the trial of the court below, such as the defendant's agreement with the victim and the fact that the defendant does not repeat again while scrapping his vehicle, even though considering the defendant's defense in the trial of the court below, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court below was proper, and that there was no abuse of discretion or deviation from the discretionary limit.

3. As the appeal by the defendant is groundless, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.