The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Although the Defendant appealed on the ground that it was unfair for the Defendant to commit each crime of this case on the ground that the Defendant was sentenced to punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment), each crime of this case was committed in order to escape from a traffic accident while driving a drinking vehicle even though the Defendant destroyed the damaged vehicle while driving a drinking, and that the nature of the crime is not very good. The Defendant’s alcohol concentration in blood measured at the time of this case is considerably high by 0.168%, and the Defendant’s driving distance is considerably high, and the Defendant’s driving distance was considerably high, and the Defendant committed a second offense even though the Defendant had been punished three times due to a drinking crime, in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and changes in the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant is against the Defendant, the agreement with the victim, and there is no history of punishment imposed on the Defendant exceeding the fine, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed on the Defendant for the same reason as stated in its reasoning is unfair.

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 151-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the judgment of the court below ex officio is corrected as "Article 151-2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020)" to "Article 151-2 of the former Road Traffic Act".