2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against himself/herself, and the fact that the defendant's vehicle has subscribed to the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance policy.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in a state where the defendant was unable to drive normally due to drinking and it is not good that the victim of the traffic accident was injured, that the defendant did not agree with the victims, that the defendant has been punished several times, including the suspended sentence of imprisonment, due to traffic-related crimes, such as the driving of drinking and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (or the equivalent).

It is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable in light of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the record, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, however, the court below’s ex officio dismissal of “Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act” to “Article 148-2(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act” as “Article 148-2(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act” among the application of the law of the court below ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.