2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the defendant agreed with the victims at the court below.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant had five times the history of punishment for drunk driving; (b) the driving of a vehicle while under the influence of 0.268% alcohol content and causing a traffic accident; (c) the drinking driving brings about not only the driver but also the life and body of others; and (d) there is a need to strictly punish the driving; and (e) other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are considered in favor of the Defendant, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable even if the circumstances favorable to the Defendant as seen earlier are considered.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.

(1) The defendant asserted that he had driven the instant accident vehicle before the first pronouncement date, but the defendant, who had been punished five times due to drinking driving, had been aware that he had driven the instant vehicle on behalf of the O, did not disclose the details ofO, and further refused the defendant's statement on the motive that the defendant had concealed the O's crime and the price that the defendant received due to the motive that the defendant had concealed the O's crime, and rejected the defendant's above assertion.