The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) the gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant is a recipient of basic livelihood security who is not healthy due to the need to maintain a social stability; (b) the Defendant is in a position to care alone for the father with disability 2; (c) the mother suffering from dementia; and (d) the Defendant is in a profoundly against the instant crime and not repeating the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant is going to not commit a second offense, the penalty (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court

2. Taking into account the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, the instant crime cannot be deemed to be a case where the Defendant drives a cargo vehicle without a driver’s license under the influence of alcohol level of 0.192%. The drinking driving is an offense that may cause damage not only to an individual but also to the life and property of another person, and needs to be strictly eradicateed by reflecting the amendment of the Road Traffic Act. In addition, the Defendant has the history of having been punished by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the past, as well as the history of the Defendant’s punishment on November 10, 2010, on the grounds that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of four months due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (license without a driver’s license) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (license without a driver’s license) and on the grounds that it is difficult to expect the Defendant to obtain a license for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or a fine again on November 1, 2011).