A. As the Defendant asserted only unfair sentencing on the date of the erroneous determination of facts as the grounds for appeal, the Defendant did not clearly withdraw the assertion of mistake stated in the statement of grounds for appeal, this shall also be examined.

Since the Defendant, after driving of the instant case, dynasium, dynasium was additionally dynasium before dynasium was dynasium, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the blood alcohol concentration in the instant case was not correct.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence adopted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (the defendant clearly stated that he did not raise any objection to the blood alcohol concentration of this case at the time that he was investigated by the investigative agency, and even when he was tried at the court below, he did not raise any objection to the blood alcohol concentration of this case), the court below's recognition of the blood alcohol concentration of this case is just and there is no error of mistake of facts.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court should respect the sentencing of the first instance court.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment. In full view of the following factors, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age and happiness environment; (b) the details and details of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.