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). Along with the fact that the Defendant appears to recognize and again refrain from repeating a crime, health conditions are not good, and family members need to be supported, there are conditions favorable to 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, in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to three years of probation on December 12, 2017 by imprisonment with prison labor and on June 12, 2017 due to the same kind of crime and without being aware of the fact that he committed the instant crime, as well 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, there is no new change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in light of the sentencing conditions and the context of the sentence.

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.