2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, has the inherent area of sentencing determination in the first instance court. As such, in a case where no change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances such as: (a) the Defendant appears to have an attitude to reflect in depth during the period of detention; (b) the Defendant had difficulties in supporting and operating his/her family members due to detention; and (c) the fact that the Defendant appears to have a social relationship, such as her relatives and ties, can be considered.

However, the defendant was punished twice since September 2017 in a relatively recent year, and the execution period is the same kind of crime, and the driver's license of this case was revoked, and it does not seem that there was an inevitable or urgent reason to drive under the influence of alcohol at the time. Therefore, it is inevitable to punish the defendant as having weak awareness about the driving under the influence of alcohol and its compliance intent.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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.