The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant does not seem to have been in a state where the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc. at the time of each crime. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the defendant, the victim of the crime of causing property damage, has favorable circumstances, such as the fact that C, the victim of the crime of causing property damage, wanting to take a preference against the defendant, these circumstances appear to have been considered in all at the court below and there is no change in circumstances in the trial. Meanwhile, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant caused an accident due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) in this case, several times, and the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case without being aware of the fact that he had been punished for the same crime due to the same kind of crime, etc., the court below already sentenced a sentence lower than the original statutory punishment by means of discretionary mitigation, and the current Road Traffic Act provides that the defendant should be punished significantly compared to a simple drinking driving in this case for the purpose of preventing a drunk driving that threatens road traffic safety and raising awareness about it without any justifiable reason. In addition, considering the motive and circumstances leading to each of the crimes in this case, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, and circumstances, etc.