2. It is recognized that there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s acknowledgement of all of the instant crimes.

However, according to the circumstances such as the fact that the blood alcohol concentration level at the time of the defendant was considerable, that caused the traffic accident in this case due to negligence that neglected the duty of care in front of the defendant, and that there was significant degree of violation of the duty of care, that many victims suffered significant injuries, and that some victims suffered significant injuries. Nevertheless, as the defendant lent another person's vehicle and caused the traffic accident in this case, the defendant was not able to recover any damage to the victims, that the defendant did not agree with the victims, that there was no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and that the defendant was punished for the same crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change of circumstances that make the original judgment and the punishment different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.