The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We can take into account the following circumstances: (a) a single studio; (b) a defendant led to a confession of and reflects on the facts constituting an offense; (c) a distance of drinking driving is about 50 meters; and (d) a person does not cause other damage, such as a traffic accident.

On the other hand, the defendant was punished eight times in total due to driving of alcohol or driving without a license. The defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment due to driving without a license for drinking alcohol in 2009, and was sentenced to four months of imprisonment due to a license for driving without a license for drinking in 2012, and was sentenced to four months of imprisonment due to a license for driving without a license for drinking in 201, and the defendant was hospitalized in a middle patient room since about 31 years ago.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant committed the instant crime of driving without a license under the influence of alcohol again while under the influence of 0.132% high alcohol level during the same repeated offense period, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant to a sentence.

Meanwhile, in full view of the descriptions of the Defendant’s final statement of Jan. 19, 2016, Mar. 15, 2016, Apr. 2, 2016, and Apr. 12, 2016, the Defendant stated that “the space where a large number of people live in a narrow space is to increase the risk of infection as above, and the said degree of infection, etc. frequently occurred during the repayment season, is known as an important factor of the astronomical aggravation of the organ,” and that “the Defendant is in a state where continuous confirmation of the medication and the progress of the administration are needed because it does not fall short of the normal scope of the pulmonary function, and it continues to have a subjective respiratory difficulty,” but the present status of the Defendant’s treatment is “the situation where the patient is in a state of restoration from the artificial respiratory hospital due to the aggravation of the symptoms to the artificial infectment of the patient.”

In addition, according to the statement of (F hospital) on April 4, 2016, the medical care for approximately two weeks is required as astronomical organ infection NOS, etc. However, the above statement of opinion is examined from the date of preparation.