2. The Defendant appears to have committed all of the instant crimes and committed a mistake.

In addition, the Defendant was smoothly agreed with the victim (F) of this case and the above victim did not want to be punished against the Defendant.

In addition, it is not good that the defendant's health conditions are not good, such as that the damage to the crime of damage of this case was not serious, that the vehicle of this case was scrapped, that the defendant was the most likely to support the aged's parents and their two daughters, that the defendant suffers from the normal urology, high blood pressure, and phical blood certificate, and that the defendant's large father and friende wanted their wife against the defendant, etc. should be considered in favor of the defendant.

However, the instant crime committed, however, that the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol (0.151%) while driving the Defendant’s vehicle on the road, and then destroyed (repair cost of KRW 368,982) the part behind the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle and escaped without taking necessary measures, and thereafter, the Defendant driven the above Defendant’s vehicle (0.156%) under the influence of alcohol (0.151%) while under the influence of alcohol.

Furthermore, even if the Defendant committed the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act) on March 17, 2015 and the Defendant committed the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on April 26, 2015, the Defendant again committed the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on April 26, 2015, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on February 1, 2011.