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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime and committed the instant crime in a state of 0.201% alcohol concentration during the period of repeated crime, even though there were no circumstances to consider the motive of the instant crime. However, there was only a history of fine, suspension of execution, and imprisonment with labor for the same kind of crime in the past. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of 0.201% alcohol concentration during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

In light of the materials submitted in the trial at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below, and the sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, reputation, character and conduct, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., do not seem to be unfair because the sentencing of the court below excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.