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 crime and reflects his mistake, agreed with the victim about physical damage caused by the instant traffic accident, the Defendant has an economic difficulty, supported a spouse who is not healthy, and the Defendant is expected to suffer some difficulty in the care of his spouse when providing community service or attending lectures.

However, the crime of this case was committed under the influence of 0.150% alcohol level by the defendant without a license. In light of the level of drinking and driving distance, etc., the case is not less and less, in light of the driving of the mandatory insurance without a license, and it does not seem that there was an imminent or inevitable circumstance that the defendant should drive under the influence of alcohol without a license. The drinking driving is a serious crime causing danger to his life and body, and the revised Road Traffic Act strengthens criminal punishment by raising the statutory punishment for the crime of this case. In addition, the traffic accident occurred by the defendant while the defendant was committed in the crime of this case without being aware of the past history of punishment, including the suspension of the execution of the same kind of crime, even though the defendant had been punished several times prior to the crime of this case. In full view of all the circumstances, including the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, occupation, and the circumstances surrounding the crime of this case, etc., the court below added the order of compliance driving instruction to the defendant while a suspended sentence is proper and unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal of this case is justified.