The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant appealed on the ground that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) was too unreasonable. However, even if the Defendant had been punished four times prior to the instant case, the Defendant committed the instant crime, which was committed again, even though he had the history of being punished four times due to drinking alcohol driving or refusal to measure drinking, and caused a traffic accident being committed on the right side of the road at the time of the instant case, and the driving of a motor vehicle is deemed to have been done while driving a motor vehicle in the state of being opened to the direction of the police who was dispatched after receiving a report, and there was a high risk that may lead to a serious accident, in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and changes theory, even if considering the Defendant’s family relation and economic circumstances, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed on the Defendant for the reasons stated in its reasoning is too unreasonable.

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 50 of the last sentence of the judgment of the court below ex officio shall be corrected by adding "Article 50" to "(in the case of concurrent crimes within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of the above two crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below for the crime of violation of Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking)," after the last sentence