2. The judgment of the Defendant caused a traffic accident, but did not cause any personal injury, and agreed with the victim who suffered physical damage during the trial.

However, the Defendant was driving under the influence of 0.139% of alcohol level in blood, and not only was driving under the influence of 0.139%, but also was punished three times for the same crime by causing traffic accidents. The Defendant was driving again under the influence of alcohol, since the period of probation due to driving without a license is too limited.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequences as shown in the records and pleadings, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted (the defendant argued that the arrest in the act of crime was illegal only after the time when the written reason for appeal was not timely filed, but ex officio, the defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he was driving at around 02:05 on June 13, 2017, when he caused a traffic accident on the same day and at around 02:20,20 on the same day, and when he was dispatched to the accident scene, the defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he was driving in drinking. Since the defendant was under the control of about 15 minutes from the time when the accident occurred due to driving in drinking at the accident site, it is recognized that the time and location contact is recognized, the police officer confirmed the defendant's appearance that he was living in a non-sto-sor and sorting, after listening to the statement of the witness of the accident and arrested him as a flagrant offender in the act of drinking, and thus, the defendant's argument can be accepted.