2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, 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, etc.). Notwithstanding several times, the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the criminal history of criminal punishment due to drinking and driving without a license, and driving a motor vehicle under a license without a license, even though he/she was found to have been investigated by an investigative agency after being investigated by the control of drinking and driving without a license.

In light of this, since the defendant lacks compliance spirit with the Road Traffic Act and considerable risk of recidivism, it is necessary to cause awareness of it through severe punishment.

The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

When comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, family relation (in the process of supporting the wife and his/her children), motive and background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the party, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. 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.