The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence of two years of suspended execution and 40 hours of the order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture is too unreasonable for six months of imprisonment sentenced by the court below.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and against his mistake, and that there was no secondary damage, such as the occurrence of an accident due to the Defendant’s driving, etc., the Defendant is economically difficult, support his family members, and the Defendant is anticipated to suffer some difficulty in living while implementing the order to attend a lecture imposed on him.

However, the crime of this case is a case of driving a vehicle under the influence of 0.123% alcohol level in light of the level of driving and driving distance, etc. of the case, and it does not seem that there is any urgent or inevitable circumstance that the defendant should drive in the state of drinking, and the revised Road Traffic Act strengthens criminal punishment by raising the statutory punishment for the serious crime that causes danger to the life and body of himself/herself and others. Even though the defendant had been punished four times due to driving under the influence of alcohol before, the crime of this case was committed in this case, and all other circumstances, including the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, occupation, and the circumstance of the crime of this case, etc., the sentence of the court below, which added the order of compliance driving under the suspension of execution, by imposing a suspended sentence, cannot be deemed unfair.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.