2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant’s family members and a person with his family appears to have relatively clear social ties, such as the Defendant’s birth of the Defendant’s wife.

However, drinking driving is a crime that threatens the life and body of himself/herself and other persons, and the high blood alcohol level (0.122%) of this case, and the defendant is not aware of the fact that he/she committed the crime in this case without being aware of the fact that he/she had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment four times due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, including the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (driving Vehicles) and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes") around 2004 and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes"), and there is no special change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and considering all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case such as the defendant's age, occupation, character

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.