The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The judgment below is deemed to have rendered the above punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant (the fact that the traffic accident occurred due to the drinking driving in this case, which caused the traffic accident, but the defendant's collision with the road seat while driving in the course of a repeated offense) and unfavorable circumstances (the defendant committed all the crimes in this case during the repeated offense period; the blood alcohol concentration is considerably high; the defendant was sentenced to a fine of five times in total due to the act such as driving without mandatory insurance or paying the traffic accident without a license; and the defendant was sentenced to a fine of five times in total due to the act such as driving or paying the traffic accident without a license conditions; and the history of driving in the juvenile protection case by having caused the traffic accident two times or more).

The grounds for various sentencing recognized by the court below and the defendant mentioned above are as follows: (a) they are driving under the influence of alcohol in this case even before two months have passed since they had been driving under the influence of alcohol 0.165% of blood alcohol level on December 1, 2019; (b) the defendant's age, career, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; (c) circumstances after the crime was committed; and other various circumstances known by the record; and (d) there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible for the court below to change the sentence against the defendant; and (e) in light of the fact that the sentence of the court below is the lowest sentence that can be sentenced within the applicable sentencing range after discretionary mitigation, its sentencing is appropriate and it cannot be deemed that the court below abused its discretion or deviates from the limits of discretion.

The sentencing of the court below is not unfair.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.