2. Circumstances favorable to judgment on the grounds of appeal: The defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

The degree of injury of victims is relatively minor.

As the defendant agreed with the victims, the victims do not want to punish the defendant.

The vehicles are covered by the comprehensive automobile insurance.

The crime of this case is not likely to be a crime because the defendant, who had been punished twice due to drinking, is driving a drinking while driving a drinking, and is driving a drinking again while one month has not passed from that time.

Each drinking level is relatively low.

All the conditions of sentencing and the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, including the above favorable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances, the defendant's age and character environment, relationship to victims, motive means of crime, results of crime, circumstances after crime, etc., as well as the overall conditions of sentencing and the scope of recommended punishment according to sentencing guidelines

(a) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) / [Determination of Type] No. 1 (Bodily mitigated Person for Traffic Accidents) (including specially mitigated person), punishment not for driving (including serious efforts to recover from damage) / In the case of driving under drinking, etc. (the scope of recommended punishment / [the scope of recommended punishment - 1 year] basic area (4 months to 1 year);

(b) In the case of concurrent crimes falling under any of subparagraphs 1 and 2 (Crimes of Violating the Traffic Act on Roads) and the violation of the Traffic Act on roads, the sentencing guidelines are not prepared;

C. In full view of the following facts: (a) imprisonment with prison labor for the final sentence scope according to the standards for handling multiple crimes for at least six months (the scope of recommending punishment is lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentences under law; and (b) the sentence imposed by the lower court deviates from the sentencing discretion of the Defendant.

It is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unaffort enough to be assessed.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit.