The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects the Defendant; and (b) there are some other circumstances that may be taken into account in the course of driving.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant had the history of having been punished several times, including imprisonment with prison labor and a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same crime; (b) the driving of a drinking motor vehicle during the period of probation due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, background and background of the crime, means and result of the crime; (d) the blood alcohol concentration level; (e) driving distance; and (e) circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the instant case; and (e) there were no special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court, it cannot be said that the lower court’

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.