2. The judgment that the defendant reflects the crime, and that the vehicle operated by the defendant is expected to be covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and that the compensation for damage to the victim would be guaranteed to a certain extent is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The defendant has been sentenced to a fine on three occasions due to drinking driving and a punishment for suspension of the execution of imprisonment on one occasion, and has been sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

However, the crime of this case was committed by causing a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the injury to the victim.

At the time of the instant case, the alcohol level of the Defendant’s blood was 0.204% high.

In light of the criminal records of these defendants and the behavior of drinking driving, the risk of recidivism is very high.

Since there is a need to punish the defendant strictly.

There was no agreement with the victim.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., as well as the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.