2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the ground that the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health belt and the lower court, in light of the circumstances of the instant case, are not good enough to commit the crime.

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the ground that there was no change in the sentencing conditions when compared to the lower court on the grounds that there was no reason to newly consider it in the first instance trial, and there was no change in the sentencing conditions, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there was no change in the sentencing conditions, considering the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, such as the fact that the blood alcohol concentration was measured high, twice a fine for drinking driving within 10 years, once a suspended sentence of imprisonment was imposed, once a suspended sentence of imprisonment, and the Defendant

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.