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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and against himself/herself, the lower court agreed with the victim, and that the social relationship seems to be relatively clear, such as the fact that the Defendant and his/her family members wanting to take care of the Defendant’s wife, is more favorable.

However, in consideration of the social danger and harm of a crime threatening the life and body of a person and another person, the risk of drinking driving occurs due to the occurrence of a traffic accident by the defendant's drunk driving crime, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the fact that he had been suspended from the execution of imprisonment for the crime causing a traffic accident as in this case, as in this case, and at the same time, he committed the crimes of this case. In consideration of the already favorable circumstances, the court below sentenced a sentence to a maximum sentence of punishment which has been subject to discretionary mitigation. After the court below was sentenced, there is no special change of circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below, such as the defendant's age, occupation, character, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, equality in sentencing, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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

3. Conclusion.