The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that: (a) the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflects a crime; (b) the victim’s injury is relatively minor and agreed with the victim; (c) the Defendant is suffering from the symptoms of alcohol and the public interest disorder; (d) the Defendant suffers from the suffering of alcohol, and (e) is making efforts to cure the disease; (e) the Defendant suffers from the suffering from the disorder of alcohol, and (e) the hospitalized treatment for treatment; (b) the economic situation is not good; and (c) the Defendant raises the child, and (d) the Defendant alone raises the child, and thus, the Defendant’s family members are the only income source of

However, at the time of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's blood alcohol content is very high at 0.159% and 0.269%, and the mileage driving in the state of drinking is considerable, and the traffic accident is causing the victim's injury, and the defendant committed a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Epicing Vehicles) one time, seven times after 200, or seven times as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (LA) or a violation of the Road Traffic Act (LA). In addition, the defendant committed a crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was punished for the crime of this case, such as the crime of this case. In particular, the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as of September 15, 2017.

The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account all the above circumstances, and did not submit new sentencing data for the first time.