The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering various circumstances against the defendant in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The judgment is a favorable condition for the following reasons: (a) the defendant was aware of the crime of this case and took depth; (b) the defendant and the defendant’s wife as a person with disabilities are not healthy; (c) the defendant’s economic situation is difficult; and (d) the defendant disposed of the vehicle after this case.

However, drinking driving has a high potential risk of causing a traffic accident, and there is a high need for strict diversification of it due to a crime that may threaten the life and body of others, and the defendant has been punished several times as the same crime (two times a suspended sentence of execution, and five times a fine). In particular, on February 23, 2012, the Gwangju District Court sentenced the imprisonment for six months and two years a suspended sentence as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Gwangju District Court, which was sentenced on March 3, 2012, and was under suspended sentence after the judgment became final and conclusive on March 3, 2012, taking into account the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the blood alcohol concentration of the Defendant at the time of the instant case was higher than 0.11%, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant accordingly.

In such circumstances, Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has driven a motor vehicle at least twice under the influence of alcohol shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not less than one year but not more than three years. The court below already mitigated the crime of this case and then sentenced the defendant to the minimum punishment legally applicable to the defendant. In full view of all the sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act including the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, etc., the court below's punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.