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 from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and did not repeat the instant crime, such as disposing of the automobiles driven at the time of the crime, and that the blood alcohol concentration (0.048

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he had been punished three times (two times of fine and one time of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment) by committing the same kind of crime, and driving under the influence of alcohol is in need of strict punishment in light of the social risk and harm of the Defendant’s life and body, taking into account the favorable circumstances as argued by the Defendant. The lower court rendered a sentence equivalent to the lower court’s maximum punishment which has undergone discretionary mitigation, taking into account the favorable circumstances as argued by the Defendant, and there is no special change of circumstances that may change the lower court’s punishment after the sentence was sentenced, and there is no other change of circumstances that may change the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the equality of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, it cannot be said 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 without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.