2. It is desirable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance judgment.

In light of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the nature of the crime and the fact that the crime was committed under the influence of alcohol, even if the previous conviction, such as the crime of interference with the performance of official duties in a deceptive scheme, committed a continuous and serious violence while under the influence of alcohol, but two months have not passed after having completed the sentence due to the crime, and thus, the crime was committed again under the influence of alcohol, and thus, the lower court’s sentence, which sentenced the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines (two years to four years), following the reduction of the amount of punishment, cannot be deemed to be unfair to the extent that the sentence of the lower court is too too unreasonable to avoid the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.