2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists a unique area of the first instance in the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s decision because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared with that of the lower court, and when comprehensively considering all of the reasons for sentencing specified in the records of this case, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below is just to delete ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that “A summary order of KRW 1,500,000 is issued for a fine due to a crime of violation of Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court on July 23, 2010,” among the crimes in the second to third parts of the crime in the judgment below.