A. The Defendant did not have a difficult condition to drive normally due to influence of drinking at the time of the accident.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that it was a signal such as red color signal at the time of the accident; (b) the defendant, even though the blood alcohol content was 0.160%, requested the police report to the surrounding person in order to cover the sight expenses; (c) the victim D was unable to walk immediately, and was suspected of drinking alcohol by snow snowing and drinking; and (d) the defendant also stated to the effect that the largest cause of the accident is his drinking driving.

The defendant is deemed to have been in a difficult condition due to influence of drinking at the time of the accident.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In full view of the records of this case’s unreasonable sentencing and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Therefore, 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 groundless. It is so decided as per