2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and appeared against the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

However, driving of drinking is likely to infringe not only on the driver's life and property, but also on the other person's life and property.

The current Road Traffic Act stipulates that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking more than twice in order to prevent the driving of drinking which threatens the safety of road traffic and to realize the awareness of such violation shall be punished more strictly when he/she drives drinking again.

In 2010 and around 2012, the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment of each fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving).

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

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