2. The judgment of the court below is advantageous to the following: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (b) the vehicle driven by the Defendant appears to have been covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance and thus, the victims’ injury is relatively less severe; and (c) the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendant in the court below.

However, even though about 10 years ago, there was a history of being punished by a fine for the same kind of drinking driving, and at the time of the instant case, the blood alcohol content of the Defendant was considerably high by 0.154% at the time of the instant case, and the driving distance was considerably high to about 10 km. As such, the Defendant not only driven a vehicle on the river north, which is a motorway in which a large number of vehicles drive under the influence of alcohol, but also caused considerable danger to road traffic, but also the occurrence of a traffic accident involving three victims by realizing the risks, and the driving of drinking is a serious crime threatening the life, body, and property of others and their families using the road as well as the driver, and it is reasonable to impose strict legal responsibility.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances favorable to or unfavorable to the defendant, as well as other factors, such as the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, etc., and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment compared with the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the records and arguments of this case, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even in light of all the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal.