2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of 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, etc.). Notwithstanding several times of criminal punishment for driving alcohol, the Defendant again committed the instant crime, despite the fact that he/she had a history of criminal punishment due to drinking alcohol, and even during the suspension period of execution due to the same crime, he/she again driven a vehicle without being aware of it.

Since the Defendant lacks compliance spirit with the Road Traffic Act, such as driving without a license even before the crime of this case, and considerable risk of recidivism, it is necessary to cause a serious punishment to the Defendant.

The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

When comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the party, the sentence imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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