2. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are unique areas of the first instance court concerning sentencing, and in addition, considering the ex post facto and in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in cases where 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 the discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment just because it is somewhat different from the appellate court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing reasons as stated by the lower court and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the record and trial process of the instant case, including the following: (a) there is no change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial; and (b) the Defendant had a total of seven times of punishment including three times of punishment due to drunk driving; and (c) the Defendant was a repeated offender for whom five months have not passed since the completion of the execution of punishment due to a special injury by alcohol driving; and (d) the Defendant was a criminal during the period of repeated crime for which five months have not passed yet; and (e) the lower court’

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