2. However, there are conditions favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is not higher than 0.078%, and that there is no previous conviction or heavier than the suspended execution due to the same kind of crime.

However, even if the Defendant received a fine of KRW 2 million on March 29, 2016 due to drinking driving on December 9, 2016 and a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to drinking driving on December 200, the Defendant committed three times for a short period of up to two months, committing the instant crime, and the vehicle driving at the time of receiving the said fine of KRW 1.5 million was not a vehicle owned by the Defendant, but a vehicle was not a vehicle owned by the Defendant. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime by using the same vehicle, it seems that the risk of repeating the crime was high. If there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, and the lower court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In so doing, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have been too strict, taking account of various circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, environment, motive, motive, motive, motive, and motive of the instant crime.

On the other hand, the defendant sought a reduction or exemption of community service hours, but in light of the criminal records, etc. above, the defendant needs to have an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior and recover social responsibility through community service. Although the community service order for 80 hours may somewhat obstruct the defendant's living, it shall be sufficiently performed within the scope that does not interfere with the defendant's living through consultation with the protection observation office after the judgment became final and conclusive.