2. The judgment that the defendant recognized the crime of this case. However, the crime of this case is highly dangerous that the defendant driven a bus for commuting to and from work by many people. The defendant was punished for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, including once a sentence is sentenced, two times a suspended sentence, etc., up to 15 times. Nevertheless, the defendant re-strekes the crime of drinking driving of this case and does not seem to have any inevitable circumstances that make it possible for the defendant to drive drinking. (The defendant was able to do so after returning home after the driving of this case in the court of first instance to ensure the parking space for the victim's vehicle after driving of this case, and the accident of contact with the victim's negligence occurs. However, it is difficult to accept that the defendant's statement about drinking and the circumstance leading up to the accident is changing after drinking, and it is hard to see that there is any special circumstance that the defendant's oral argument and the sentencing of drinking of this case are disadvantageous to the defendant, including the defendant's age of drinking and drinking driving of this case.)

3. Therefore, 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.