The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the two-year suspension of imprisonment for eight months, and the forty-hour course of compliance driving) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include not only the fact that the Defendant was in depth of his mistake, but also the fact that the victims who suffered the instant traffic accident have recovered from the damage through the automobile insurance company, but also the fact that the victims who suffered the most severe injury were directly agreed with the victim H.

However, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the crime of this case was 0.108%, and the defendant was punished for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act on March 26, 2007 and September 30, 2008, but committed the crime of this case, it is judged that the court below's order the defendant to attend the compliance driving course for 40 hours at the time of suspending the execution of imprisonment for 8 months is reasonable, and it is not determined that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable even in light of various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime.

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

(However, since it is apparent that "Article 38 (1) 2" is a clerical error in Article 38 (1) 2 and (2)" among the aggravated crimes under the application of the law of the court below, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.