2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all the circumstances on the grounds of sentencing (such as the fact that blood alcohol level was high at the time of driving, that there was a history of punishment several times due to drinking driving, that there was a confession of a crime) and all the sentencing conditions (two times prior to and five times due to drinking driving, that were punished by the suspension of execution of imprisonment, that were committed during the period of a repeated crime due to a crime of this type, that were committed during the period of a repeated crime due to a crime of this type, that the Defendant was unable to complete his/her duties due to detention, that the Defendant was in charge of the company due to the reasons for appeal (the fact that the lower court failed to complete the duties due to detention, that the infants were in the third grade of high school, that there was a family and family members supporting the old-school, and that the Defendant’s wife was born, it cannot be accepted from the judgment of the lower court without undue consideration.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.