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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the circumstances of the Defendant’s sentencing, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s history of criminal punishment, including the power of punishment for a drunk driving, was heavy; (b) the Defendant has not yet passed since it was controlled by a drunk driving; (c) the blood alcohol content was considerably high; (d) the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was against the Defendant; (d) the Defendant’s violation of the penal provision; and (e) the Defendant’s custody of her children; and (e) there is no circumstance to newly consider in the trial; and (e) there is no change in the sentencing conditions when compared with the lower court, it is reasonable to respect

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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