2. The judgment of the court below did not take any measures to avoid the detection by drinking driving even after causing the instant traffic accident, and the fact that the victim was injured by the instant traffic accident, such as 3 weeks of climatic base, tensions, and climatic signboards, but did not reach an agreement with the victim is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, since the defendant confessions the facts of the crime and reflects on the accident, the driver of the damaged vehicle immediately after the traffic accident in this case divided the conversations between the defendant and the damaged vehicle at a place less than 300 meters away from the scene of the accident, and the driver of the damaged vehicle was in a relatively less dangerous danger due to failure to take measures after the accident. Since the traffic accident in this case entered the national road, which was led by the defendant's vehicle, along with the driver's leading by the defendant's side, after entering the national road, the traffic accident in this case conflicts with the damaged vehicle, which was led by the defendant's vehicle, and seems to have been part of the negligence of the driver of the damaged vehicle in the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case and the expansion of damage, the vehicle operated by the defendant is also covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance; the vehicle in this case deposited KRW 3 million for the victim in the trial; the defendant's insurance paid KRW 27,056,870 to the victim and the damaged vehicle in this case; the defendant's motive for punishment for the crime in this case cannot be seen to other circumstances.

3. Conclusion.