2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s deep reflects the instant crime, the injury of the victims is relatively minor, and the victims do not want punishment because the Defendant agreed with the victims, and there are no criminal records exceeding the fine, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances of the instant crime.

However, in full view of all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, circumstance after committing a crime, etc., where the instant accident occurred while driving a second alcohol while the Defendant had a previous record of driving alcohol, and the driving of alcohol is likely to cause serious harm to an unspecified person, and the social risk is considerably high. In fact, the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving alcohol, and the risk thereof is realized. The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration in the Defendant’s blood at the time of committing the instant crime is not insignificant to 0.119%, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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. The court below's decision ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

1. Since it is apparent that the phrase “paragraph 2” has been omitted in the second sentence of Article 37 and Article 38(1)2, of the Criminal Code, the addition of the phrase “paragraph 2” is made same as the disposition,” of the aggravation of the ordinary law.