2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court considered that (i) the Defendant was subject to punishment once due to the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, such as drinking, drinking, driving without a license, etc. four times due to drinking, etc.; (ii) the sentence includes two times a suspended sentence (2011, 2015), two times a suspended sentence (201, 2015), and the sentence relates to a crime during the suspended sentence or repeated crime; (iii) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the repeated crime during the repeated period due to drinking, and (iv) the Defendant was subject to punishment due to a license without a license for driving without license; and (v) the Defendant’s motive and circumstances leading up to the instant crime; and (v) the Defendant’s age of the instant punishment.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing 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.