2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and 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 first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the crimes of this case, it appears that there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower court, unlike the above, considering the fact that the lower court determined the punishment against the defendant, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) is extremely necessary to punish the defendant as crimes that may cause harm to his life and property, and the defendant was sentenced to punishment for violation of the Road Traffic Act (such as drinking Decree) and the traffic accident under the Road Traffic Act at the time of the enforcement of the Act on 20th of July, 207, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "traffic accident").