2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

The fact that the Defendant appears to be against the Defendant’s recognition of the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have been aware of the existence of alcohol after the driving of the instant drinking was discovered, and that the Defendant is obliged to support the aged parents in the face of illness, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the defendant was punished by a fine due to drinking driving on 2006, 2008, 2009, and even though he had the record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to drinking driving on 2014, the defendant was going to commit the crime in this case.