The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. On August 16, 2015, it is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the personal injury of the victims of a traffic accident is relatively insignificant as three weeks each, and (b) the fact that an insurance company appears to have agreed with the victims; and (c) the fact that the victims of a traffic accident were led to an agreement with the victims.

On the other hand, the Defendant was punished by a fine of 2 million won in 2005 and a fine of 2.5 million won in 2009 due to driving under drinking, and was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) in 2014, and was sentenced to 8 months of suspended execution and 2 years of suspended execution. During the period of suspended execution, the Defendant was not detained on August 16, 2015 (the judgment of the court below 2015 high group 956 parts of the judgment of the court below) and was under suspended driving without a drinking license on October 28, 2015 (the second part of the judgment of the court below 2015 high group 1162 parts of the judgment below) and was sentenced to a sentence by the Defendant on October 17, 2015.

The lower court, including the aforementioned circumstances, determined the punishment by fully taking into account the circumstances surrounding the sentencing of the Defendant within the scope of the sentencing guidelines, and determined the punishment within the reasonable scope.

As there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. If so, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the application of the statutes in the judgment below, “the punishment imposed on a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act with heavy punishment” is a clerical error in “the punishment imposed on a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act with heavy punishment.”