2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant as committing a crime and reflects the mistake in depth; (b) there is no criminal record exceeding the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor; (c) the degree of injury suffered by the victims is relatively minor; and (d) the Defendant agreed with two victims.

On the other hand, the defendant, even though he had been subject to punishment several times for the same crime, is going to commit the crime of this case, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time of each crime of this case is very high to 0.328% and 0.218%, and is driving under the influence of alcohol on June 11, 2019.

In light of the following circumstances: (a) while being investigated in the instant case after causing a traffic accident, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant pleadings, such as the fact that no opening was possible by committing each crime committed on July 17, 2019 at the same time; (b) the possibility of criticism is high; and (c) the risk of recidivism appears to be high; and (d) the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have been excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the application of the written judgment of the court below is clearly a clerical error since the omission of Article 38 (1) 2 in the following "Article 38 (1) 2" in the "1. concurrent concurrent crimes" is apparent, and it is corrected to add it in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.