A. The victims of misunderstanding of facts were not injured, and the Defendant is not correct in blood alcohol concentration measured after drinking alcohol at the P cafeteria after the instant accident.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victims of the accident of this case suffered injuries, such as catum salt, etc. requiring medical treatment among about two weeks, and the defendant can find that he did not drink at the P cafeteria after the accident of this case (the defendant prepared a written statement that he did not drink at the above cafeteria at the investigative agency, not by any circumstance to deny the credibility of the criminal facts of this case, and that he did not drink at the above cafeteria). The above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of unreasonable sentencing and the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of the suspension of the execution of the same kind of crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.