2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are the following: (a) the recognition and reflect of the Defendant’s crime; and (b) the support for family members.

However, considering that the social harm of drinking driving is serious and the statutory punishment is raised, it is necessary to strictly punish drinking driving crimes.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant had been punished three times due to drinking driving, and in particular, the Defendant again committed a crime of drinking and driving without obtaining a license during the period of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for six months due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) on March 9, 2018, despite being sentenced to two years of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, he/she again committed a crime of drinking and driving without obtaining a license during the period of the suspension of the execution of the sentence; the instant crime caused a physical accident at the time of the instant crime; the degree of the risk of drinking driving in light of the substance of the accident; the blood alcohol concentration is very high to 0.134%; and there are no other changes in the sentencing conditions and arguments of the Defendant, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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.