2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects, and that there is a family member to support, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background of the crime, degree of alcohol level during blood transfusion, driving distance, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account all of the factors of sentencing specified in the oral argument, even though the Defendant had been punished several times, including the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same kind of crime. As such, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentence is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.