2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (c) there was no record of punishment for the same crime; (d) the victim D did not want to be punished for the victim at an investigative agency; (c) the Defendant was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy; (d) the Defendant committed a traffic accident beyond the central line while driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; (d) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and escaped; (e) the victim D was injured for two weeks; (e) the victim F was under the influence of alcohol; (e) the victim D was damaged for three weeks; (e) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol driving; (e) the Defendant was under the control of two times; (e) the victims were under the control of alcohol driving; and (e) the victims were under the control of two years and six months following the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc. under the age of 13; and (e) the Defendant did not have been aware of the Defendant’s repeated offense during the period of the instant crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and various factors of sentencing indicated in the record, such as circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable. 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 it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.