2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have recognized and reflected his mistake.

The accident vehicle of the defendant is covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance, and the degree of injury of the victims is relatively minor.

However, in 199 and 2017, the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine twice due to drinking, again caused a traffic accident while driving the first drinking of this case.

In this regard, the defendant had been investigated into the above drinking driving and the traffic accident investigation, and at the same time, the second drinking of this case is highly likely to be criticized, and there seems to be no vision.

In each of the crimes of driving alcohol in this case, the blood alcohol concentration (0.112% and 0.101%) is considerably high.

The victims have four or more victims, and they have not agreed or received a letter separately from the victims.

The court below sentenced the above punishment against the defendant in consideration of the above favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the defendant.

In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial of the party are considered, there is no meaningful change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relation and social bond, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to be unfair because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion and is too unreasonable.

If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, according to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.