“”

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the court below’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is advantageous to the Defendant’s acknowledgement of the instant crime, and there is a high level of alcohol level (0.185%) in the Defendant’s blood alcohol level (0.185%) at the time of driving of the instant case, and driving of the instant case requires strict reduction in considering the social danger and harm of the Defendant’s crime threatening his/her life and body. In particular, the Defendant was punished before the instant case; the lower court’s imprisonment was the lowest sentence that can be sentenced within the scope of the sentence after mitigation of the amount of imprisonment, the Defendant’s age, circumstances, the circumstances of the instant case, and the circumstances of the instant case, the following circumstances, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.