2. Determination is recognized as favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant criminal facts and against his mistake, and the fact that the Defendant, while scrapping a vehicle used for the instant crime, would not drive under drinking again, etc.

However, the defendant has a large number of records of criminal punishment due to drunk driving, and in particular, even though he had been sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime in around 2008, he seems to have repeated driving without any particular awareness of the crime. The defendant's blood alcohol concentration is considerably high, and the risk of drunk driving is realized by causing an accident involving a truck parked as a result of the crime in this case. The defendant is highly likely to be able to commit the crime in this case without being aware of even though he had been under the suspension period of the execution due to the crime in this case. The court below seems to have sentenced the maximum punishment due to discretionary mitigation, taking into account the favorable circumstances favorable to the defendant. In addition, considering the defendant's age, occupation, character and behavior, intelligence and environment, the motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, health conditions after the crime, and criminal record relation, etc., the judgment of the court below is reasonable and unreasonable, and the defendant's assertion is not justified.

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.