2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and 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). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking account of the following factors: (a) the circumstances favorable to the Defendant; (b) the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake in favor of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant voluntarily surrenders himself at the investigation stage; and (d) the victim was not wanting to be punished against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant had the record of punishment for driving under drinking alcohol; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended execution; and (d) the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the details and degree of damage of the instant crime; and (c)

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it difficult to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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.