2. The circumstances are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and in depth reflects the victim's depth, the degree of injury suffered due to the traffic accident of this case is not serious, the defendant did not want the punishment of the victim since the defendant was in the first instance, and the defendant's disposal of the vehicle of this case was in the first instance, and the defendant did not repeat again, such as disposal of the vehicle of this case, etc.

However, the crime of this case is driving a car while the defendant is under the influence of alcohol.

The current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking driving twice or more shall be punished more severe if he/she drives under the influence of alcohol again for the purpose of preventing the driving under the influence of alcohol which threatens the safety of the road traffic and overcoming the awareness of the situation. The defendant has the history of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol once again (three times of fine, one time of suspended sentence, one time of suspended sentence), and in particular, it is judged that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated period due to driving under the influence of alcohol, such as the circumstance unfavorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, relationship of criminal records, environment, means and method of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and the punishment of this case is too heavy. In full view of all the sentencing conditions stated in the arguments of this case, it is unreasonable to determine that the sentence of this case should be reversed to the extent that the sentence of the court below is too inappropriate.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit.