The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that each offense, other than the offense of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), committed by the Defendant, is deemed to have been committed in a state of mental and physical weakness due to depression.

However, in full view of the various circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, including the fact that the Defendant was punished for drinking driving, the fact that the Defendant committed a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle by stealing and driving a motor vehicle, the degree of injury to the victim, and the injury to the victims is serious, and the injury to the victims was not recovered as much as the damage to theft and damage to property was not recovered, the punishment sentenced by the court below against the Defendant is not heavy.

3. According to the conclusion, Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: Provided, That in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the sentence of the lower judgment is “Special Act on the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) and the violation of Road Traffic Act on the grounds of damage to property by negligence, the sentence of imprisonment without prison labor, and the remaining crimes