The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Improper sentencing in the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first trial date in the first trial in the first trial in the first trial in the first trial in the first trial in the first trial in the first

2. The lower court determined that: (a) under the circumstances that the Defendant committed the same type of crime during the period of repeated crime resulting from interference with his/her duties and was first sentenced to a fine; (b) the Defendant committed the same type of crime; and (c) there were many records of punishment for the same type of crime; (d) the Defendant reflects the crime; and (e) the degree of interference with his/her duties is not serious; and (e) the Defendant imposed a sentence that is somewhat lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence based on the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

It is difficult for the defendant to recover from damage due to the detention of the defendant and the weakness of social relationship, but it has caused contingent crimes under the influence of alcohol, and it is expected to completely cut off the alcoholic beverage in order not to repeat the crime.

It is recognized that it is against the depth, such as duplicating.

However, even considering this, the above conditions of sentencing have changed significantly in the trial.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, in light of the fact that the above sentencing is lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

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 grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.