2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant.

However, even though there are many records of punishment for the same crime such as drinking and non-licensed driving, the Defendant committed the crime of drinking and non-licensed driving in this case even though he was punished for the same crime (4 times a punishment penalty, one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor).

In particular, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment in the first instance with respect to the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol while driving in the past, and was sentenced to one year of probation in the appellate court.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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.