The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The normal conditions are favorable to the confession that the defendant made a confession of crime and reflects the mistake, that the defendant has agreed with the victim, that the vehicle driven by the defendant is covered by comprehensive insurance.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime committed by the Defendant while driving a vehicle while drinking alcohol, causing a traffic accident; (b) the Defendant escaped without taking any measures against the two vehicles; (c) the Defendant refused a police officer’s demand for measurement of drinking without justifiable cause; (d) the Defendant has a very poor quality of the crime; (c) the driving of drinking alcohol has a record of being punished three times due to a police officer’s demand for measurement of drinking; (d) the driving of drinking alcohol is a crime threatening another person’s life and body as well as the latter; and (e) the degree of injury suffered by the victim is not easy; and (e) other unfavorable conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

The ground for appeal is without merit.

3. In the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s dismissal ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and decided to revise “Articles 148 and 54(1) of the Road Traffic Act” as “Articles 148 and 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 14356, Dec. 2, 2016)” as “Article 148 and 54(1) of the former Road Traffic Act.”