2. It is recognized that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, recognized the crime of this case, committed a second offense while disposing of the vehicle, committed a second offense, there is a family member to support the defendant, there is no penalty penalty, the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered by the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the agreement between the defendant and three victims is reached, and the defendant's wife wanted to take the action.

However, it is recognized that the defendant had already been punished 6 times in total due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as "driving") and had already been punished 0.225% of the alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of the instant case, even though a number of victims had been involved in a traffic accident due to the central line while driving under the influence of alcohol during the instant case, without taking necessary measures.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of crime, means and consequence of crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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