2. The fact that the Defendant’s wife was committed in the first instance, and all of the offenses, and the fact that the Defendant’s wife agreed with the victimized insurance company is favorable to the Defendant.

The fact that the defendant had five criminal records of drunk driving, thereby driving a unregistered vehicle under the influence of a repeated license during the period of repeated crime, and attempted to receive an agreement with the victim J and receive an intentional accident, which is disadvantageous to the defendant. The fact that the defendant deceivings the insurance company to receive an amount of considerable amount of insurance money by deceiving the insurance company is that it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors, including the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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