2. We also recognize the circumstances that can be considered, such as the Defendant’s refusal to commit the instant crime.

However, the defendant, while driving a drinking alcohol, caused the shock confluence by shocking the victim's vehicle behind the signal atmosphere, and the degree of damage is significant, the victim's damage caused by the traffic accident in this case is not easy, and multiple vehicles are damaged, the defendant's vehicle is not covered by comprehensive insurance, the victim's vehicle is not covered by comprehensive insurance, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is high, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was high, and the defendant caused the traffic accident in this case due to negligence that neglected his duty of care at the time of drinking, and the defendant caused the traffic accident in this case by negligence. The degree of violation of duty of care is very heavy, and the defendant has a history of punishment several times due to drinking driving.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is no special change of circumstances that make the original judgment and the punishment different from the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.