2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the figures, such as the family members of the defendant want to be a prior wife against the defendant, and that the defendant would not repeat the offense.

However, on February 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and was sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (absent driving) only ten months after the date he was released from the prison, and was sentenced to a fine, thereby committing the instant crime due to the instant drinking driving, and the instant crime also constitutes a repeated offense.

In light of the above circumstances, the lower court sentenced a sentence lower than the minimum statutory penalty by taking account of the mitigation of a small amount, and there is no new change in circumstances that change the punishment in the first instance.

In addition, in full view of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, infinite growth background, family relations, and criminal records, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Accordingly, 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.