2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there is no change in the sentencing conditions since the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, such as the fact that there are many criminal records including the same kind of criminal records, and the fact that the drinking value of the Defendant was high, considering the overall circumstances of the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

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