2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There are extenuating circumstances, such as the following: (a) the Defendant was led to the confession of the instant crime, and the Defendant was against himself/herself; (b) the Defendant’s company and employees are faced with economic difficulties due to the detention of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant’s management of the Defendant was suffering from the economic difficulties; and (d) the neighbors have social ties by actively participating in community service activities, such as scholarship programs; and (e) the fact that community service activities, such as scholarship programs, are actively participating in such activities; and (e) the health condition is not good.

However, even though the Defendant had already been punished four times or more as the same crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime (the fine on January 2003, the fine on January 2009, the fine on November 2001, the imprisonment on May 6, 2016, the suspended execution of two years and the order to attend a course), the blood alcohol level is high, and the drinking driving is highly likely to lead to a high risk of suffering not only the driver but also another person's life. In full view of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant's argument does not accept the Defendant's argument since it is not found that the Defendant exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion or is too unreasonable, and there is no other circumstance to newly consider in the trial.

3. As such, 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.