2. The lower court rendered a sentence for one year and six months, comprehensively taking account of the following: ① the favorable circumstances: (i) the Defendant led to confessions and reflects; (ii) the vehicle involved in an accident appears to be able to recover from damage caused by traffic accident because it subscribed to a comprehensive insurance policy; (iii) the circumstances unfavorable; (iv) the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the repeated offense period due to the same crime; (v) there were many records of having been punished as a non-license for drinking; and (v) the blood alcohol concentration (0.19%) at the time of driving; (v) there was a tendency to debris violence upon the withdrawal of alcohol; and (v) the instant crime should be avoided if the alcohol is easily under the influence of alcohol; and (v) the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, even though it is necessary to reduce the possibility of criticism and recidivism; and (v) the Defendant aggravated the morale of police officers performing his duty by assaulting and insulting him; and (v) there was a need for strict punishment.

In addition to these sentencing conditions, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; (b) whether all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and the trial process, including the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, are different from those of the lower court; and (c) there is no special change in circumstances to assess differently the sentencing conditions up to the trial process, the lower court’s sentence determined within the scope of

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 42 of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act was omitted in the column of “increased of repeated crime 1.” and “increased of concurrent crimes 1.” among the application of the law of the lower judgment, so it is evident that the “proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act” was omitted.