The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant had a habit of drinking while drinking alcohol in a state of drinking, and such habits constitutes a state of mental disability that makes it difficult to avoid the Defendant. Thus, each of the crimes of drinking in this case committed in a state of mental or physical weakness, but the lower court, which did not consider these circumstances, did not err by mistake of facts or by misapprehending of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of March, 2017 higher order of 7404, 2017 higher order of 7983) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of each drinking of this case.

It is not visible.

Furthermore, even if it is not so, when considering the fact that the Defendant had a history of driving alcohol at multiple times, the Defendant appears to have caused a state of mental and physical weakness by his own person even though he predicted or could have predicted the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of drinking. Therefore, the Defendant cannot claim the above status as a ground for the denial of responsibility or the mitigation of responsibility pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court.