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 en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence equivalent to the maximum statutory penalty for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions revealed in arguments, including (i) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, (ii) the fact that the Defendant is aware of the crime, and (iii) the degree of blood alcohol concentration is high.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the proceedings of the instant case, and there are no other special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.