2. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). While the Defendant was punished twice due to drunk driving, the Defendant again committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol driving, it cannot be deemed that he/she committed the instant crime.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that there are circumstances to consider the circumstance in which the defendant was making a drunk driving of the instant case.

However, there are no criminal records other than the criminal records of drinking in 2007 and the criminal records of drinking in 2012, and the criminal records of 2012 are considerable periods from the crimes of this case.

In addition, the Defendant acknowledges the crime from the police to the trial of the party, and on the other hand, presents an rebuttal to the effect that the Defendant sells the vehicle “influence and will not commit any unlawful act in the future.”

(However, there is no new special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

Based on this case’s sentencing precedents, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, which are the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the motive and means of committing the Defendant’s age, including the main circumstances above, as well as the circumstances after committing the result, the lower court’s sentence is too weak to avoid the reasonable scope of discretion, even in light of the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal.