2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are recognized, such as the confession of the instant crime by the Defendant, against the mistake, etc.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have driven a car while under the influence of alcohol by the defendant, in light of the contents of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy, the defendant has a history of being punished several times for the same kind of crime, and our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, should respect the sentencing in cases where there exists the unique area of the first deliberation and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial, and the first deliberation sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The favorable circumstances favorable to the defendant recognized above do not constitute a change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below was sentenced, and there is no other special circumstance that the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., which forms the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, and it does not seem unfair to have been too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio by the lower court pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the Defendant’s appeal is corrected as adding “1. Defendant’s oral statement” to “the summary