The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment in the appellate court’s judgment, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The degree of injury to the victims is minor, and the victims do not want punishment in the course of investigation is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has already been punished for a crime of drinking driving more than three times, and the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in October 2013.

Furthermore, the defendant has been punished several times for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and in 2017, there are other traffic-related criminal records such as punishment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unnecessary Measures after Accidents).

Nevertheless, the defendant, while driving under the influence of alcohol again, has caused a traffic accident and caused human injury.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.