The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant is a farmer and her mother and her first-year baby in the old and middle school; (b) the Defendant is in profoundly against her mistake; and (c) the Defendant sells and disposes of the vehicle on the other hand; and (d) the Defendant agreed with the victim of a traffic accident.

2. Taking into account the circumstances as argued by the Defendant, even if the Defendant had already been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as “AF”) in the past, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by shocking the cargo vehicles driven by the victim C while driving without a driver’s license even though he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.110% even though he had already been under the influence of driving at least twice. In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by shocking the cargo vehicles driven by the victim C while driving without a driver’s license. The drinking driving is a crime that may cause damage not only to individuals but also to life and property, and it is necessary to strictly eradicate it by reflecting the purport of the revision of the Road Traffic Act. The Defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as “AF”) in the past, as well as for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as “AFFF”) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as “AFFFFFFFI”) again and the Defendant’s without license.