2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

No new circumstance exists after the judgment of the court below that could reduce the sentence of the court below after the judgment of the court below, and the social consensus on the risk and seriousness of drinking driving recently led to a significant increase in the statutory punishment. In addition, even considering all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.