2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, 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 fact that the Defendant recognized a crime and reflects the criminal fact, and the blood alcohol concentration is relatively high and the driving distance is approximately 600M is recognized.

However, all these facts are circumstances that were revealed and considered in the original trial.

The driving distance has not been driven because it was discovered to police officers under the control of the defendant at the time.

(Evidence No. 5) The defendant has a record of being punished several times for a drunk driving, and in particular, it is inevitable to sentence sentence that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspension period of the execution due to a drunk driving.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence, and taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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