Judgment

The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, and the fact that the defendant suffers from urology and the health status is not good.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have driven a car while under the influence of alcohol without a driver's license; in light of the circumstances and contents of the crime, the liability for the crime was heavy; the amount of alcohol concentration of the defendant's blood at the time of the crime of this case was considerably high; the defendant has been punished three times by a fine due to drinking driving or one criminal punishment due to a non-licenseing driving; the defendant committed the crime of this case at the same time; in our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there are areas unique to the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing; and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial, and the first trial sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the defendant before the judgment of the court below did not correspond to any change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below, and the defendant's age, the defendant's environment and circumstances changed.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the "application of statutes" of the judgment of the court below is under the lower line of the ordinary concurrent provisions.