The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the crime of this case was committed only at the parking lot in an apartment complex that is not a road provided by the Road Traffic Act, and thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident).

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (hereinafter “the penalty”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act includes not only the road but also driving at a place other than the road in the case of Article 148 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (the measures not to be taken after the accident) and Article 148-2 concerning the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act. Thus, each act entered in the facts constituting the crime of the lower court committed by the Defendant in the parking lot in an apartment complex is subject to punishment

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, even if it is considered that there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the lower judgment, and considering the motive and background of the Defendant’s driving of drinking alcohol, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at that time, and the physical damage caused by an accident, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments in the instant case.

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