The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendant was not at the place before measuring alcohol alcohol consumption, the Defendant cannot be found to have the alcohol concentration (0.105%) in the measured depositee’s blood.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to each evidence, including the statement of the circumstances of the driver at the bar who was lawfully adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake, and the inquiry about the control of drinking driving, it is acknowledged that the defendant conducted a drinking test at the date, time, and place indicated in the facts charged, and conducted a drinking test by inserting a pulmonary measuring instrument, and then did not raise an objection to the alcohol concentration (0.105%) in the blood alcohol concentration indicated in the respiratory measuring instrument or did not request blood collection. Thus, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was driving a vehicle under the influence of 0.105% in the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant did not put the proposal to be put in place before the measurement of drinking, as otherwise alleged by the defendant.

there is no evidence to consider.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant driving a drinking alcohol shows the attitude to recognize and reflect the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same offense before the instant crime was committed, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same offense, and there is no record of being subject to special criminal punishment other than that sentenced once to a fine for this offense, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was driving while drinking.