2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, the situation such as the fact that the defendant scraped the car while the defendant was willing not to drive the car again after the crime of this case, and that the co-driving of the car has a family member to support the defendant including the son who is a university student, and that the defendant agreed with the victims.

However, the crime of this case was committed on an expressway under the influence of 0.116% of alcohol level by the defendant while driving a motor vehicle on the expressway with the influence of 0.16% of alcohol level and causing injury to the victims of traffic accidents. It does not seem that there was an urgent or inevitable circumstance that the defendant should drive in the influence of alcohol level. The defendant had the record of being punished for driving under the influence of alcohol level before, and the defendant was sentenced to the punishment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act on November 3, 201, which was sentenced to the suspension of the execution for 6 months, and was under the suspension of the execution period, and was under the suspension of the execution period. In addition, the accident occurred on the expressway due to the drinking driving of the defendant, and the vehicle driving the opposite lane caused the second accident, the drinking driver was under the influence of alcohol level, and the revised Road Traffic Act strengthened the statutory punishment as well as the other serious crime causing harm to the life and body of others, the current Road Traffic Act further regulates the defendant's age of drinking driving and its punishment for the purpose.