2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant appears to recognize the crime and would not repeat the crime again, and that it is necessary to support the Defendant’s father and wife who suffers from the Hem disc disease, and that there is a favorable condition for the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for traffic-related crimes, including drinking driving, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on October 25, 2018, and was engaged in drinking without being aware of the fact that he had been sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence despite the fact that he was under suspended sentence, and that there are no new changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal records, the background and motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, blood alcohol concentration, driving distance, etc., as shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.