2. The following facts are favorable to the Defendant.

At the time of the trial of the first instance, the defendant denied the fact that the victims suffered injuries due to traffic accidents caused by the defendant, but all of them are recognized at the time of the trial and they are against the crimes.

The injury suffered by the victims is relatively minor.

The victims and agreements have been reached.

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The crime of this case is a bad crime that the defendant caused a traffic accident due to drinking driving, resulting in injury to the victims, and runs away without taking necessary measures even after destroying the victim H's vehicle.

The defendant was sentenced to a fine in 2013 due to drinking driving, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment in 2014, but was not well aware of it, and again committed a second offense during the suspended sentence.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed during the repeated period due to the crime of injury, etc.

Since the risk of recidivism is deemed to be high in light of the defendant's behavior of drinking driving, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s 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.