2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the victim of the instant crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (c) the fact that the victim appears not to have good economic conditions.

On the other hand, although the crime of this case was committed by the defendant while driving a motor vehicle without mandatory insurance with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.122%, while suffering physical damage by shocking the victim's vehicle behind the accident, the nature of the crime is not good. The defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime four times, and the blood alcohol concentration concentration of the defendant was relatively high to 0.12% at the time of detection, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc. as well as the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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