The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the fine of 150,000 won, community service and compliance lectures of 40,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized and reflected each of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving the instant drinking alcohol was relatively lower than 0.069%; and (c) the depositary of the Defendant did not have any criminal record of suspended execution or higher due to the same type of crime.

However, the Defendant has been punished five times due to drinking or non-licensed driving, and the last punishment was imposed on March 2016, and the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in only one year and two months thereafter, and the Defendant was exposed to driving without a license on May 14, 2017 and did not impose any punishment therefor. Moreover, taking full account of the Defendant’s age, environment, sex behavior, motive for the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, and other various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Meanwhile, the Defendant sought a reduction or exemption of the hours of community service and order to attend a lecture, but in light of the Defendant’s criminal records, etc., the Defendant needs to inspire compliance consciousness through the order to attend a lecture and prevent recidivism, and need to have an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior and recover social responsibility through community service. Although the order to provide community service and order to attend a lecture for 40 hours may somewhat obstruct the Defendant’s workplace life, the court below sentenced the above order to the minimum extent considering the Defendant’s circumstances, and does not interfere with his/her life through consultation with the protective observation office after the judgment became final and conclusive.